Hi All,
I have an FTP Server where the users are sending files (say the server
name is fs1). I was wondering whether there was a way to know every two
hours that the FTP server was up writing sql codes (SQL server is
running on a different server and the server name is dbs1). If it is
down (for any reasons) then I want to send mail to network personnel. I
want to put that code in a scheduled job to run every two hours.
Could any one please help what I can do in this situation?
Thanks a million in advance.
best regards,
mamunConsider using MOM for this:
http://www.microsoft.com/mom/default.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
FTP Directly into SQL Server
Hello,
Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a table.
Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole process.
Thanks in advance
In article <57F9D4E8-4E14-44F0-AFEA-03EDDAEBE945@.microsoft.com>,
sqlquestion0001@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it
> into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a
> field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will
> take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL
> server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to
> dictate the whole process.
I would look at something like Mabry's FTP Server library and build the
app yourself. It's actually a very easy control to use and it will let
you enforce decent security. I would recommend running this app on a
different server as FTP requires a lot of ports to be open.
There are also a number of shareware FTP servers out there that let you
setup accounts and restrict file types. You can set fixed commands to
run on the upload completion event.
|||Why not just get them to use bcp to "send" it to you instead of FTP?
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole process.
> Thanks in advance
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforu...?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index...partmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a table.
Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole process.
Thanks in advance
In article <57F9D4E8-4E14-44F0-AFEA-03EDDAEBE945@.microsoft.com>,
sqlquestion0001@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it
> into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a
> field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will
> take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL
> server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to
> dictate the whole process.
I would look at something like Mabry's FTP Server library and build the
app yourself. It's actually a very easy control to use and it will let
you enforce decent security. I would recommend running this app on a
different server as FTP requires a lot of ports to be open.
There are also a number of shareware FTP servers out there that let you
setup accounts and restrict file types. You can set fixed commands to
run on the upload completion event.
|||Why not just get them to use bcp to "send" it to you instead of FTP?
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole process.
> Thanks in advance
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforu...?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index...partmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
FTP Directly into SQL Server
Hello,
Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into
a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a
table.
Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take F
TP requests directly, or is there something internal?
We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server
via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole
process.
Thanks in advanceIn article <57F9D4E8-4E14-44F0-AFEA-03EDDAEBE945@.microsoft.com>,
sqlquestion0001@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it
> into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a
> field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will
> take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL
> server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to
> dictate the whole process.
I would look at something like Mabry's FTP Server library and build the
app yourself. It's actually a very easy control to use and it will let
you enforce decent security. I would recommend running this app on a
different server as FTP requires a lot of ports to be open.
There are also a number of shareware FTP servers out there that let you
setup accounts and restrict file types. You can set fixed commands to
run on the upload completion event.|||Why not just get them to use bcp to "send" it to you instead of FTP?
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it int
o a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in
a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take
FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL serv
er via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the who
le process.
> Thanks in advance
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvfor...p?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faqsql
Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it into
a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in a
table.
Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take F
TP requests directly, or is there something internal?
We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL server
via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the whole
process.
Thanks in advanceIn article <57F9D4E8-4E14-44F0-AFEA-03EDDAEBE945@.microsoft.com>,
sqlquestion0001@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it
> into a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a
> field in a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will
> take FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL
> server via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to
> dictate the whole process.
I would look at something like Mabry's FTP Server library and build the
app yourself. It's actually a very easy control to use and it will let
you enforce decent security. I would recommend running this app on a
different server as FTP requires a lot of ports to be open.
There are also a number of shareware FTP servers out there that let you
setup accounts and restrict file types. You can set fixed commands to
run on the upload completion event.|||Why not just get them to use bcp to "send" it to you instead of FTP?
> Is there any way to FTP files directly into SQL Server?
> We'll have users who want to FTP a file to us. Instead of bringing it int
o a file system, we'd like it to automatically put the file into a field in
a table.
> Is there a product out there that sits on top of SQL Server that will take
FTP requests directly, or is there something internal?
> We would rather not have to write it to a file, then pull it into SQL serv
er via some polling mechanism. We want the user's action to dictate the who
le process.
> Thanks in advance
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvfor...p?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faqsql
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Front end website full-text search
I have a front-end search set up that takes the users input and runs a
stored procedure that uses FREETEXTTABLE to get the results. I want it
so that when a user types in a search that has words grouped together
inside quotes (i.e. "sql server") it does an AND instead of an OR. I
know that CONTAINSTABLE can have this kind of logic but I was wondering
if there is a way to handle this without having my script (ASP)
building the search phrase by parsing the user input.
Any ideas? Or has someone done this and have some advice.
Thanks.
But if it does an AND it will not be the same as "sql server" which searches
for the two words occurring adjacent to each other.
Here is a proc which you can set whether you want the entire phase, an OR,
or an AND.
CREATE PROCEDURE SearchSQL (@.stringin varchar(200), @.BooleanType int= NULL)
AS
-- a @.boolean type of null means a phrase based search
-- a @.boolean type of 0 means an OR type search
-- a @.boolean type of 1 means an AND type search
DECLARE @.holdingString VARCHAR(2000)
DECLARE @.whitespace INT
DECLARE @.boolean VARCHAR(10)
--returning a syntax message if no search phrase is passed
IF LEN(@.stringin)=0
BEGIN
PRINT 'usage is SimpleSQLFTSSearch ''Your Search Phrase goes here'''
RETURN -1
END
SET @.boolean=case WHEN @.booleantype=1 THEN char(34)+' OR ' + char(34)
WHEN @.booleantype=2 THEN char(34)+' AND ' + char(34)
ELSE ' ' END
DECLARE @.counter INT
DECLARE @.posold int
DECLARE @.posnew int
SET @.holdingstring='SELECT * FROM authors AS a JOIN
CONTAINSTABLE(authors,*,'''+char(34)
SELECT @.whitespace=LEN(@.stringin) - LEN(replace(@.stringin,' ',''))
SELECT @.posold=0
SELECT @.posnew=Charindex(' ',@.stringin)
WHILE @.whitespace >=0
BEGIN
IF @.whitespace=0
BEGIN
SELECT
@.holdingString=@.holdingString+SUBSTRING(@.stringin, @.posold+1,LEN(@.stringin)-@.
posold+1)+char(34)+char(39)+',200) AS t ON '
END
ELSE
BEGIN
SELECT @.holdingString = CASE WHEN LEN(SUBSTRING(@.stringin,@.posold+1,
@.posnew-@.posold-1))>0 THEN @.holdingString+SUBSTRING(@.stringin,@.posold+1,
@.posnew-@.posold-1)+@.boolean ELSE @.holdingstring END
SELECT @.posold=@.posnew, @.posnew=Charindex(' ',@.stringin, @.posold+1)
END
SELECT @.whitespace=@.whitespace-1
END
SELECT @.holdingString = @.holdingString + 't.[KEY]=a.au_id ORDER BY RANK
DESC'
--PRINT @.holdingstring
EXEC(@.holdingstring)
RETURN @.@.rowcount
Usage is:
DECLARE @.returncode int
EXEC @.returncode=SearchSQL 'this is a test'
PRINT @.returncode
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JT" <jtreuting@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112316885.228212.171380@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I have a front-end search set up that takes the users input and runs a
> stored procedure that uses FREETEXTTABLE to get the results. I want it
> so that when a user types in a search that has words grouped together
> inside quotes (i.e. "sql server") it does an AND instead of an OR. I
> know that CONTAINSTABLE can have this kind of logic but I was wondering
> if there is a way to handle this without having my script (ASP)
> building the search phrase by parsing the user input.
> Any ideas? Or has someone done this and have some advice.
> Thanks.
>
stored procedure that uses FREETEXTTABLE to get the results. I want it
so that when a user types in a search that has words grouped together
inside quotes (i.e. "sql server") it does an AND instead of an OR. I
know that CONTAINSTABLE can have this kind of logic but I was wondering
if there is a way to handle this without having my script (ASP)
building the search phrase by parsing the user input.
Any ideas? Or has someone done this and have some advice.
Thanks.
But if it does an AND it will not be the same as "sql server" which searches
for the two words occurring adjacent to each other.
Here is a proc which you can set whether you want the entire phase, an OR,
or an AND.
CREATE PROCEDURE SearchSQL (@.stringin varchar(200), @.BooleanType int= NULL)
AS
-- a @.boolean type of null means a phrase based search
-- a @.boolean type of 0 means an OR type search
-- a @.boolean type of 1 means an AND type search
DECLARE @.holdingString VARCHAR(2000)
DECLARE @.whitespace INT
DECLARE @.boolean VARCHAR(10)
--returning a syntax message if no search phrase is passed
IF LEN(@.stringin)=0
BEGIN
PRINT 'usage is SimpleSQLFTSSearch ''Your Search Phrase goes here'''
RETURN -1
END
SET @.boolean=case WHEN @.booleantype=1 THEN char(34)+' OR ' + char(34)
WHEN @.booleantype=2 THEN char(34)+' AND ' + char(34)
ELSE ' ' END
DECLARE @.counter INT
DECLARE @.posold int
DECLARE @.posnew int
SET @.holdingstring='SELECT * FROM authors AS a JOIN
CONTAINSTABLE(authors,*,'''+char(34)
SELECT @.whitespace=LEN(@.stringin) - LEN(replace(@.stringin,' ',''))
SELECT @.posold=0
SELECT @.posnew=Charindex(' ',@.stringin)
WHILE @.whitespace >=0
BEGIN
IF @.whitespace=0
BEGIN
SELECT
@.holdingString=@.holdingString+SUBSTRING(@.stringin, @.posold+1,LEN(@.stringin)-@.
posold+1)+char(34)+char(39)+',200) AS t ON '
END
ELSE
BEGIN
SELECT @.holdingString = CASE WHEN LEN(SUBSTRING(@.stringin,@.posold+1,
@.posnew-@.posold-1))>0 THEN @.holdingString+SUBSTRING(@.stringin,@.posold+1,
@.posnew-@.posold-1)+@.boolean ELSE @.holdingstring END
SELECT @.posold=@.posnew, @.posnew=Charindex(' ',@.stringin, @.posold+1)
END
SELECT @.whitespace=@.whitespace-1
END
SELECT @.holdingString = @.holdingString + 't.[KEY]=a.au_id ORDER BY RANK
DESC'
--PRINT @.holdingstring
EXEC(@.holdingstring)
RETURN @.@.rowcount
Usage is:
DECLARE @.returncode int
EXEC @.returncode=SearchSQL 'this is a test'
PRINT @.returncode
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"JT" <jtreuting@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112316885.228212.171380@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I have a front-end search set up that takes the users input and runs a
> stored procedure that uses FREETEXTTABLE to get the results. I want it
> so that when a user types in a search that has words grouped together
> inside quotes (i.e. "sql server") it does an AND instead of an OR. I
> know that CONTAINSTABLE can have this kind of logic but I was wondering
> if there is a way to handle this without having my script (ASP)
> building the search phrase by parsing the user input.
> Any ideas? Or has someone done this and have some advice.
> Thanks.
>
front end options for entering data into an oracle database
Hi,
I need to set up a generic table in Oracle that allows users to enter
data that can later be retrieved in reports.
I was thinking of a 3 column table in this structure:
DATE,ITEM,VALUE
figuring that you can store anything in this way because ITEM can be
anything and you can have multiple instances of a particular value by
having a new date.
Does that seem reasonable?
In any case, what are my user front end options? I was thinking a
Microsoft Access database but its not ideal because not everyone here
has Access?
Can you do it with Excel? Or what other options are there as a simple
user front end to enter the data?
Thanks for any advice.
Kimanasttin@.excite.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I need to set up a generic table in Oracle that allows users to enter
> data that can later be retrieved in reports.
> I was thinking of a 3 column table in this structure:
> DATE,ITEM,VALUE
> figuring that you can store anything in this way because ITEM can be
> anything and you can have multiple instances of a particular value by
> having a new date.
> Does that seem reasonable?
No. It's a classic design error that defeats most of the reasons why we
use a DBMS at all.
http://tonyandrews.blogspot.com/200...n-mistakes.html
Also, this is a Microsoft SQL Server group. You'll most probably get
more help in an Oracle-specific group.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--
front end for cubes
currently i use MSInsight as my cubes front end. its an asp page that users can build reports from cubes. its pretty old, and since ive started upgrading to AS2005, it doesnt work properly, leading me to think that it is not compatiable with AS2005 cubes. so im wondering, whats a good front end that can be used by many users? this rules excel out, as i need a front end that can be used my many users.
I can't speak to whether it's good, as I haven't used it, but here's one:
http://www.radarcube.com/products/radaraspnet_msas.aspx
their WinForms OLAP viewer control looked decent when I evaluated it a couple months ago.
|||There's a lot out there to choose from; see
http://www.mosha.com/msolap/util.htm
as a good starting point. What kind of front end are you after?
You should also check out what's coming in the medium term with PerformancePoint, which is based in part on the technology that Microsoft acquired from Proclarity last year. See
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/performancepoint/FX101680481033.aspx
Regards,
Chris
Front End Access and Back End as SQL Server
Dear Friends,
We have MS Access database with Forms and Reports, which was started 10 years ago by users and now the data is growing very rapidly.
Did anyone tried by having MS Access as front end and SQL Server 2000/2005 as backend with minimum modifications to the forms and reports in MS Access?
Please let me know, your ideas and if there are any links in the web or in Microsoft please provide here.
Thanks in advance,
Wrong forum for this - you might try the Database Engine forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=93&SiteID=1)or the Getting Started forum (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=158&SiteID=1)
From where to download sql MSDE CLIENT TOOLS
Hi,
I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the client
connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
databases?
Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the link
for downloading the client tools?
Thanks
pmud
Microsoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
Studio -or even Access.
There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the
> client
> connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
> databases?
> Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the
> link
> for downloading the client tools?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
|||Hi Arnie,
By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users can
see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the tables.
Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can copy
the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Microsoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
> Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
> Studio -or even Access.
> There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
> recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
> databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
as client tools for MSDE.
Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
company/agency at risk.
Licensing -VL Contact
(800) 426-9400
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arnie,
> By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users
> can
> see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the
> tables.
> Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can
> copy
> the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
> Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
|||Hi Arni e,
Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql server
2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
think?
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If you are doing 'new' development, I suggest that you may wish to explore
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition. Then there will be no question/issue
about client tools and licensing.
I believe the cost is about $50 (US) per developer, and you are allowed to
have as many SQL Servers as necessary to support your development efforts.
For more details:
Licensing -Developer Edition
My understanding of the Developers Edition license is that you are covered
for a Development server, an Integration/Staging server, even a QA/Test
server, local servers on the developers computer, etc. -as long as no one
except developers access those SQL Servers, and as long as each developer
and/or Tester has a Developer Edition License.
For a more definitive answer, check with the VL folks at: (800) 426-9400.
From: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/edition...r/default.mspx
Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition entitles one developer to
use the software on as many systems as necessary and additional developers
can use the software by purchasing additional licenses.
From:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ensingv1.1.doc
DEVELOPER EDITION
SQL Server Developer Edition is a separate product and is used for
development and testing purposes only. It is licensed per developer or
tester (person).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC52F760-BD17-4C22-8DD0-916DDE4BB2B2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
> that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we
> wont
> be using this developer edition for production.
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
|||Thanks Arnie. It was helpful.
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
> Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
> ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
> If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
> I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up any
> 'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 client
> tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
with this in mind. You can download it from:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfa...rver/msde.html
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
>that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
>be using this developer edition for production.
>Please let me know your thoughts.
>Thanks
|||Hi Sue,
Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
me the code instead of the web page.
I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node called
Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button at
the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
Thanks
pmud
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
> databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
> with this in mind. You can download it from:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
> You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
> http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfa...rver/msde.html
> -Sue
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
> <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
|||If you have the .Net framework installed and need to
configure IIS for ASP.Net, you should be able to just run
aspnet_regiis -i
from the framework's folder location and it will do the
necessary steps to configure IIS for ASP.NET
This article addresses the gist of what you would need to
do:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306005
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:24:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi Sue,
>Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
>go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
>me the code instead of the web page.
>I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
>regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
>extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node called
>Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button at
>the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
>will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
>Thanks
I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the client
connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
databases?
Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the link
for downloading the client tools?
Thanks
pmud
Microsoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
Studio -or even Access.
There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the
> client
> connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
> databases?
> Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the
> link
> for downloading the client tools?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
|||Hi Arnie,
By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users can
see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the tables.
Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can copy
the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Microsoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
> Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
> Studio -or even Access.
> There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
> recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
> databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
as client tools for MSDE.
Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
company/agency at risk.
Licensing -VL Contact
(800) 426-9400
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arnie,
> By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users
> can
> see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the
> tables.
> Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can
> copy
> the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
> Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
|||Hi Arni e,
Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql server
2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
think?
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||If you are doing 'new' development, I suggest that you may wish to explore
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition. Then there will be no question/issue
about client tools and licensing.
I believe the cost is about $50 (US) per developer, and you are allowed to
have as many SQL Servers as necessary to support your development efforts.
For more details:
Licensing -Developer Edition
My understanding of the Developers Edition license is that you are covered
for a Development server, an Integration/Staging server, even a QA/Test
server, local servers on the developers computer, etc. -as long as no one
except developers access those SQL Servers, and as long as each developer
and/or Tester has a Developer Edition License.
For a more definitive answer, check with the VL folks at: (800) 426-9400.
From: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/edition...r/default.mspx
Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition entitles one developer to
use the software on as many systems as necessary and additional developers
can use the software by purchasing additional licenses.
From:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ensingv1.1.doc
DEVELOPER EDITION
SQL Server Developer Edition is a separate product and is used for
development and testing purposes only. It is licensed per developer or
tester (person).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC52F760-BD17-4C22-8DD0-916DDE4BB2B2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
> that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we
> wont
> be using this developer edition for production.
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
|||Thanks Arnie. It was helpful.
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
> Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
> ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
> If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
> I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up any
> 'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 client
> tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
with this in mind. You can download it from:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfa...rver/msde.html
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
>that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
>be using this developer edition for production.
>Please let me know your thoughts.
>Thanks
|||Hi Sue,
Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
me the code instead of the web page.
I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node called
Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button at
the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
Thanks
pmud
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
> databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
> with this in mind. You can download it from:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
> You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
> http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfa...rver/msde.html
> -Sue
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
> <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
|||If you have the .Net framework installed and need to
configure IIS for ASP.Net, you should be able to just run
aspnet_regiis -i
from the framework's folder location and it will do the
necessary steps to configure IIS for ASP.NET
This article addresses the gist of what you would need to
do:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306005
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:24:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi Sue,
>Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
>go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
>me the code instead of the web page.
>I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
>regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
>extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node called
>Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button at
>the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
>will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
>Thanks
From where to download sql MSDE CLIENT TOOLS
Hi,
I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the client
connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
databases?
Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the link
for downloading the client tools?
Thanks
pmudMicrosoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
Studio -or even Access.
There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the
> client
> connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
> databases?
> Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the
> link
> for downloading the client tools?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud|||The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
as client tools for MSDE.
Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
company/agency at risk.
Licensing -VL Contact
(800) 426-9400
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arnie,
> By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users
> can
> see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the
> tables.
> Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can
> copy
> the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
> Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||Hi Arni e,
Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql server
2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
think?
Thanks
--
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put yo
ur
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
be using this developer edition for production.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put yo
ur
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql
> server
> 2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
> mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up any
'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 client
tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arni e,
> Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql
> server
> 2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
> mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
> think?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||If you are doing 'new' development, I suggest that you may wish to explore
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition. Then there will be no question/issue
about client tools and licensing.
I believe the cost is about $50 (US) per developer, and you are allowed to
have as many SQL Servers as necessary to support your development efforts.
For more details:
Licensing -Developer Edition
My understanding of the Developers Edition license is that you are covered
for a Development server, an Integration/Staging server, even a QA/Test
server, local servers on the developers computer, etc. -as long as no one
except developers access those SQL Servers, and as long as each developer
and/or Tester has a Developer Edition License.
For a more definitive answer, check with the VL folks at: (800) 426-9400.
From: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...er/default.mspx
Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition entitles one developer to
use the software on as many systems as necessary and additional developers
can use the software by purchasing additional licenses.
From:
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...censingv1.1.doc
DEVELOPER EDITION
SQL Server Developer Edition is a separate product and is used for
development and testing purposes only. It is licensed per developer or
tester (person).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC52F760-BD17-4C22-8DD0-916DDE4BB2B2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
> that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we
> wont
> be using this developer edition for production.
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||Thanks Arnie. It was helpful.
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
> Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
> ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
> If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
> I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up a
ny
> 'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 clien
t
> tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
with this in mind. You can download it from:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
[url]http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfaq.com/how-do-i-manage-sql-server/msde.html[/ur
l]
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
>that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
>be using this developer edition for production.
>Please let me know your thoughts.
>Thanks|||Hi Sue,
Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
me the code instead of the web page.
I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node calle
d
Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button a
t
the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
Thanks
--
pmud
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
> databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
> with this in mind. You can download it from:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
> You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
> [url]http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfaq.com/how-do-i-manage-sql-server/msde.html[/
url]
> -Sue
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
> <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the client
connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
databases?
Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the link
for downloading the client tools?
Thanks
pmudMicrosoft does not provide any 'client tools' for MSDE.
Users must have an application, or programming environment such as Visual
Studio -or even Access.
There are some third party management tools on the internet -but I don't
recall that any of them where tools for "users can see and work with thier
databases", if by that you mean execute queries, etc.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:520FF8F8-271E-4AE3-84B0-7433C04B9E5A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am installing MSDE 2000 on client machines. Where can I dowload the
> client
> connectivity tools for MSDE so that users can see and work with thier
> databases?
> Do I have to download sql sp4 for that? Can someone please send me the
> link
> for downloading the client tools?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud|||The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
as client tools for MSDE.
Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put your
company/agency at risk.
Licensing -VL Contact
(800) 426-9400
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arnie,
> By users seeing the databases , I mean like in Enterpsir Manager, users
> can
> see all the databases by right clicking and can see teh schema of the
> tables.
> Also, I have SQL SErver 2000 CD with valid license. So do I think I can
> copy
> the client tools from there and put it on all machines Ineed MSDE on?
> Which files do i need to copy for taking the client tools only?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||Hi Arni e,
Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql server
2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
think?
Thanks
--
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put yo
ur
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
be using this developer edition for production.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The client tools you have on your "SQL SErver 2000 CD" are NOT be licensed
> as client tools for MSDE.
> Do all the of computers that you contemplate needing 'client tools'
> currently have a SQL Server Client Access License (CAL)?
> I would suggest that you verify with Microsoft licensing before you put yo
ur
> company/agency at risk.
> Licensing -VL Contact
> (800) 426-9400
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:23129FFE-B1D1-4C97-8E9B-6FE5F9913B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql
> server
> 2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
> mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up any
'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 client
tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Arni e,
> Thanks for your response. I think if we have Process license for sql
> server
> 2000, we should be able to install sql server 2000 teself on any no. of
> mahcines...without worrying about installing sql msde 2000... What do you
> think?
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||If you are doing 'new' development, I suggest that you may wish to explore
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition. Then there will be no question/issue
about client tools and licensing.
I believe the cost is about $50 (US) per developer, and you are allowed to
have as many SQL Servers as necessary to support your development efforts.
For more details:
Licensing -Developer Edition
My understanding of the Developers Edition license is that you are covered
for a Development server, an Integration/Staging server, even a QA/Test
server, local servers on the developers computer, etc. -as long as no one
except developers access those SQL Servers, and as long as each developer
and/or Tester has a Developer Edition License.
For a more definitive answer, check with the VL folks at: (800) 426-9400.
From: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...er/default.mspx
Each license of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition entitles one developer to
use the software on as many systems as necessary and additional developers
can use the software by purchasing additional licenses.
From:
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...censingv1.1.doc
DEVELOPER EDITION
SQL Server Developer Edition is a separate product and is used for
development and testing purposes only. It is licensed per developer or
tester (person).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC52F760-BD17-4C22-8DD0-916DDE4BB2B2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
> that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we
> wont
> be using this developer edition for production.
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Thanks
> --
> pmud
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>|||Thanks Arnie. It was helpful.
pmud
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> That is not correct. Your 'processor' license allows you to install SQL
> Server on ONE computer, and allow unlimited clients to have access to that
> ONE SQL Server. And you must have one license per CPU in that computer.
> If you have a second SQL Server, it must have its own license.
> I suggest that you may wish to chat with Microsoft licensing to clear up a
ny
> 'uncertainties'. And to also verify what is allowed use for SQL 2000 clien
t
> tools and multiple installations of MSDE.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9406756B-9235-4387-B180-2A2ECFECAA9D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
with this in mind. You can download it from:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
[url]http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfaq.com/how-do-i-manage-sql-server/msde.html[/ur
l]
-Sue
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
<pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Also Arnie, we have sql developer edition too. Do you think I can install
>that on the machines... since this will be for development only,... we wont
>be using this developer edition for production.
>Please let me know your thoughts.
>Thanks|||Hi Sue,
Its great to know about the SQL Web Data Admin. I installed it , but then I
go to view the page from http://localhost/webadmin/default.aspx, its showing
me the code instead of the web page.
I know this is happening coz in IIS my web sites are not configured to
regonize to .aspx extension. How to configure IIS to understand .aspx
extension? I know we have to right lick on teh properties for the node calle
d
Web Sites in IIS, then go to Home Diretory tab, click Configuration button a
t
the bottom, BUt what do I enter in the next window that pulls up , i.e what
will be the executable path for .aspx extension?
Thanks
--
pmud
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Actually, Microsoft does have a tool for administering MSDE
> databases. SQL Server Web Data Administrator was developed
> with this in mind. You can download it from:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
> You can find a list of other alternatives, options at:
> [url]http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfaq.com/how-do-i-manage-sql-server/msde.html[/
url]
> -Sue
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700, pmud
> <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
Monday, March 19, 2012
From Joins Versus Where Clause Joins
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
Northwind:
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
where
o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
|||Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution plan,
etc).
As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to reliably
construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some serious
issues).
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||Ahh...I didn't know that. Thank you...Very important info.
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uh7HB5#nEHA.3396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution
plan,
> etc).
> As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
> join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to
reliably
> construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some
serious
> issues).
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||Thanks!
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eKOcD3#nEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||When you put the filter criteria in the JOIN clause, it filters first and
then does the join. When you put the filter criteria in the WHERE clause,
it joins first and then filters, essentially converting the LEFT JOIN to an
INNER JOIN in many cases.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:eHFM9J$nEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
Northwind:
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
where
o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
|||Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution plan,
etc).
As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to reliably
construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some serious
issues).
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||Ahh...I didn't know that. Thank you...Very important info.
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uh7HB5#nEHA.3396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution
plan,
> etc).
> As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
> join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to
reliably
> construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some
serious
> issues).
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
|||Thanks!
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eKOcD3#nEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||When you put the filter criteria in the JOIN clause, it filters first and
then does the join. When you put the filter criteria in the WHERE clause,
it joins first and then filters, essentially converting the LEFT JOIN to an
INNER JOIN in many cases.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:eHFM9J$nEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
From Joins Versus Where Clause Joins
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
Northwind:
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
where
o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?|||Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution plan,
etc).
As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to reliably
construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some serious
issues).
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||Ahh...I didn't know that. Thank you...Very important info.
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uh7HB5#nEHA.3396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution
plan,
> etc).
> As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
> join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to
reliably
> construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some
serious
> issues).
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> >
> > As In:
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> > Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> > Vs.
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> >
> >
> > Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
> >
> >
>|||Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||Thanks!
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eKOcD3#nEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> >
> > As In:
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> > Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> > Vs.
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> >
> >
> > Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
> >
> >
>|||When you put the filter criteria in the JOIN clause, it filters first and
then does the join. When you put the filter criteria in the WHERE clause,
it joins first and then filters, essentially converting the LEFT JOIN to an
INNER JOIN in many cases.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:eHFM9J$nEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
Northwind:
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
select
*
from
Customers c
left join
Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
where
o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
As In:
SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Vs.
SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?|||Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution plan,
etc).
As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to reliably
construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some serious
issues).
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||Ahh...I didn't know that. Thank you...Very important info.
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uh7HB5#nEHA.3396@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Neither is faster (you can test this yourself, time it, view execution
plan,
> etc).
> As for better, I prefer INNER JOIN because it allows you to separate the
> join criteria from the filter criteria. It is also the only way to
reliably
> construct outer joins (the old *= syntax is deprecated and has some
serious
> issues).
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:#4soeu#nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> >
> > As In:
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> > Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> > Vs.
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> >
> >
> > Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
> >
> >
>|||Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>|||Thanks!
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eKOcD3#nEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Exactly the same. Second one is just older syntax.
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> >
> > As In:
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> > Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> > Vs.
> >
> > SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> >
> >
> >
> > Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
> >
> >
>|||When you put the filter criteria in the JOIN clause, it filters first and
then does the join. When you put the filter criteria in the WHERE clause,
it joins first and then filters, essentially converting the LEFT JOIN to an
INNER JOIN in many cases.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:eHFM9J$nEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Woah...Never knew that. Crap that's dangerous. Hope I haven't screwed up
any sql statements in the past expecting different behavior.
I'm still trying to figure out everything thats happening there.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uSgNI4#nEHA.3668@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> They perform the same. However, placing filter criteria in the ON clause
> vs. the WHERE clause can give you different results in LEFT JOIN's. From
> Northwind:
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> and o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> select
> *
> from
> Customers c
> left join
> Orders o on o.CustomerID = c.CustomerID
> where
> o.ShipCountry = 'Germany'
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:%234soeu%23nEHA.2764@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is faster/better...'from joins' versus 'where clause joins'?
> As In:
> SELECT fname FROM Employees INNER JOIN Users ON
> Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
> Vs.
> SELECT fname FROM Employees, Users WHERE Employees.UserID=Users.UserID
>
> Is one significantly worse then the other in certain situations?
>
from clause
How to write Select..From with declared variable?
I want to do something like this..
declare @.table varchar(50)
set @.table = 'Users'
Select name
From @.table
HrckoAre you talking about a table variable? Look it up in the Books
OnLine; basic syntax is
DECLARE @.table TABLE (name varchar(100))
INSERT INTO @.table (name)
VALUES('Tom')
SELECT name FROM @.table
HTH,
Stu|||Hi
Dynamic SQL:
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Hrcko" <hrvoje.voda2@.zg.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:dn2bcb$4j9$1@.ss405.t-com.hr...
> How to write Select..From with declared variable?
> I want to do something like this..
> declare @.table varchar(50)
> set @.table = 'Users'
> Select name
> From @.table
> Hrcko
>
I want to do something like this..
declare @.table varchar(50)
set @.table = 'Users'
Select name
From @.table
HrckoAre you talking about a table variable? Look it up in the Books
OnLine; basic syntax is
DECLARE @.table TABLE (name varchar(100))
INSERT INTO @.table (name)
VALUES('Tom')
SELECT name FROM @.table
HTH,
Stu|||Hi
Dynamic SQL:
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Hrcko" <hrvoje.voda2@.zg.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:dn2bcb$4j9$1@.ss405.t-com.hr...
> How to write Select..From with declared variable?
> I want to do something like this..
> declare @.table varchar(50)
> set @.table = 'Users'
> Select name
> From @.table
> Hrcko
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
Freezed column headers in RS Webreports
Hi,
a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
drilldowns it would help.
Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
feature planned for RS 2005 '
thanks
BBIf I remember correctly, that might be in SQL 2005
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||I am sorry for not answering your question directly... I also have not seen
any 3rd party prods which currently do that in sql 2000 either
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||This is available in RS 2005.
I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension yourself
for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||Hi Robert,
I haven't had a chance to test this yet so, with fixed headers in 2005 will
the scroll position stay in place for auto-refreshing reports or will it be
a pain an spring back to the top?
Thanks in advance,
James Snape
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O8oAI$goFHA.904@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> This is available in RS 2005.
> I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
> case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension
> yourself for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
> -- Robert
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> "BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
> news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
>> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
>> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
>> drilldowns it would help.
>>
>> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
>> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> BB
>|||Auto-Refresh will remember the current page number, but it will not remember
the scroll position within the page.
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"James Snape" <jim_snape.at.hotmail.com@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:ubgRWP3oFHA.3988@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Robert,
> I haven't had a chance to test this yet so, with fixed headers in 2005
> will the scroll position stay in place for auto-refreshing reports or will
> it be a pain an spring back to the top?
> Thanks in advance,
> James Snape
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:O8oAI$goFHA.904@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> This is available in RS 2005.
>> I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
>> case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension
>> yourself for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
>> -- Robert
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> "BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
>> news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
>> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
>> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
>> drilldowns it would help.
>>
>> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
>> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> BB
>>
>
a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
drilldowns it would help.
Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
feature planned for RS 2005 '
thanks
BBIf I remember correctly, that might be in SQL 2005
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||I am sorry for not answering your question directly... I also have not seen
any 3rd party prods which currently do that in sql 2000 either
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||This is available in RS 2005.
I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension yourself
for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
>
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>
> thanks
>
> BB
>|||Hi Robert,
I haven't had a chance to test this yet so, with fixed headers in 2005 will
the scroll position stay in place for auto-refreshing reports or will it be
a pain an spring back to the top?
Thanks in advance,
James Snape
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O8oAI$goFHA.904@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> This is available in RS 2005.
> I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
> case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension
> yourself for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
> -- Robert
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> "BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
> news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
>> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
>> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
>> drilldowns it would help.
>>
>> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
>> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> BB
>|||Auto-Refresh will remember the current page number, but it will not remember
the scroll position within the page.
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"James Snape" <jim_snape.at.hotmail.com@.online.nospam> wrote in message
news:ubgRWP3oFHA.3988@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Robert,
> I haven't had a chance to test this yet so, with fixed headers in 2005
> will the scroll position stay in place for auto-refreshing reports or will
> it be a pain an spring back to the top?
> Thanks in advance,
> James Snape
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:O8oAI$goFHA.904@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> This is available in RS 2005.
>> I don't know of anyone who has implemented this for RS 2000 - but in that
>> case, you would need to implement a full custom rendering extension
>> yourself for RS 2000 (which is a major effort and lots of work).
>> -- Robert
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> "BB_Reporting" <Bruce.Baessler@.web.de> wrote in message
>> news:1123855073.170843.218720@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
>> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
>> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
>> drilldowns it would help.
>>
>> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
>> feature planned for RS 2005 '
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> BB
>>
>
Freeze panes when report is exported to Excel
I am using RS 2005 and emailing reports in Excel to my end users. Is it possible to set the report in VS.Net to freeze the panes so that the user will always see the column A when they scroll to the right once they view the report in Excel?
I have the feeling the answer is no, but I thought I'd check.
Hi, there is a property named FixedHeader. I didn′t try that this deep yet (only for table header) , but it would be worth a try. I guess you will your own rendering extension as the rendering for Excel didn′t brought back the right results with fixed headers for me (worked well in HTML, but not in Excel)HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||
I'm having the exact same issue. Has anyone been able to accomplish this successfully?
Jens Suessmeyer: I tried the property option but that didn’t work for me. The closest to what I’m trying to accomplish (that I’ve gotten); it’s using a report header which freezes the first row (or whatever u have in the header) yet by design it doesn’t accomplish what I (and rs12345) am trying to do.
The only option that I see out there is purchasing OfficeWriter by SoftArtisans or just try to figure out how they do it and write the code (It seems they use scripts... not sure yet).
Any ideas anybody? (or links :) )
|||Sorry, we don't support programmatic setting of Freeze Panes. The onlything Excel export uses Freeze Panes for is for the PageHeader when
SimpleHeaders=false (the default).
Excel export ignores the FixedHeaders property.
OfficeWriter would support your use case, because you author the report in Excel and can set the freeze panes when designing the report. You could also use the ExcelApplication class from OfficeWriter to modify the output file.
OfficeWriter doesn't use VBA scripting, if that's what you mean; it reads, modifies, and writes the binary BIFF8 Excel format.
Freeze panes when report is exported to Excel
I am using RS 2005 and emailing reports in Excel to my end users. Is it possible to set the report in VS.Net to freeze the panes so that the user will always see the column A when they scroll to the right once they view the report in Excel?
I have the feeling the answer is no, but I thought I'd check.
Hi, there is a property named FixedHeader. I didn′t try that this deep yet (only for table header) , but it would be worth a try. I guess you will your own rendering extension as the rendering for Excel didn′t brought back the right results with fixed headers for me (worked well in HTML, but not in Excel)HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||
I'm having the exact same issue. Has anyone been able to accomplish this successfully?
Jens Suessmeyer: I tried the property option but that didn’t work for me. The closest to what I’m trying to accomplish (that I’ve gotten); it’s using a report header which freezes the first row (or whatever u have in the header) yet by design it doesn’t accomplish what I (and rs12345) am trying to do.
The only option that I see out there is purchasing OfficeWriter by SoftArtisans or just try to figure out how they do it and write the code (It seems they use scripts... not sure yet).
Any ideas anybody? (or links :) )
|||Sorry, we don't support programmatic setting of Freeze Panes. The onlything Excel export uses Freeze Panes for is for the PageHeader when
SimpleHeaders=false (the default).
Excel export ignores the FixedHeaders property.
OfficeWriter would support your use case, because you author the report in Excel and can set the freeze panes when designing the report. You could also use the ExcelApplication class from OfficeWriter to modify the output file.
OfficeWriter doesn't use VBA scripting, if that's what you mean; it reads, modifies, and writes the binary BIFF8 Excel format.
Freeze Panes in Excel
Is there anything I can do so that when my users export their report from
reporting services to Excel that it freezes the columns'
I also need to set a default zoom %
Is there anyway to do this - thanksI also have that problem. Because when it expands, it can be really time
consuming..
"dragon" wrote:
> Is there anything I can do so that when my users export their report from
> reporting services to Excel that it freezes the columns'
> I also need to set a default zoom %
> Is there anyway to do this - thanks
>
reporting services to Excel that it freezes the columns'
I also need to set a default zoom %
Is there anyway to do this - thanksI also have that problem. Because when it expands, it can be really time
consuming..
"dragon" wrote:
> Is there anything I can do so that when my users export their report from
> reporting services to Excel that it freezes the columns'
> I also need to set a default zoom %
> Is there anyway to do this - thanks
>
Freeze pane in RS 2000 SP2 / RS2005 web reports
Hi,
a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
drilldowns it would help.
Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
feature planned for RS 2005 '
thanks
BBThe only way (that I know of) to accomplish what you're asking for is to have
a custom application that modifies the output file after it has been saved
and then forwards it to the person who initially requested it. We have one
non-RS custom application that does this (internal use only) and are working
on a way to do this with RS rendered reports.
Basically what your application has to do:
1- Client requests report
2- Application renders report in excel and saves to disk.
3- Appliation modifies the excel file properties (page margins, fit to
page, freeze panes, etc.)
4- Appliation passes modified file to the Client
It's a lot of work.
"BB_Reporting" wrote:
> Hi,
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
> thanks
> BB
>
a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
drilldowns it would help.
Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
feature planned for RS 2005 '
thanks
BBThe only way (that I know of) to accomplish what you're asking for is to have
a custom application that modifies the output file after it has been saved
and then forwards it to the person who initially requested it. We have one
non-RS custom application that does this (internal use only) and are working
on a way to do this with RS rendered reports.
Basically what your application has to do:
1- Client requests report
2- Application renders report in excel and saves to disk.
3- Appliation modifies the excel file properties (page margins, fit to
page, freeze panes, etc.)
4- Appliation passes modified file to the Client
It's a lot of work.
"BB_Reporting" wrote:
> Hi,
> a lot of my users were asking me to have the possibilty of a freeze
> pane (similar to excel) in the RS web reports because often the reports
> are to long to see the column haeders. Especially when you have
> drilldowns it would help.
> Has somebody tried to implement such feature by DLL to RS 2000. Is this
> feature planned for RS 2005 '
> thanks
> BB
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)