Foreach File Enumerator -

I am trying to use the Foreach File Enumerator and map it to a user variable.

I select a folder in the colletion.

I use *.* for file name.

I left the default value for retrive file name.

I assigned it to my user variable ( data type string)

I am get the following error "The element cannot be found in a collection"

I am sure that I have at lest 10 file in the folder.

Can anyone tell me why I get the error?

I found out what my problem was

I had to assign a value to the variable.

The Foreach File Enumerator did not set the value when i mapped it to the variable.

I had to type in a value for the variable after I created it.

forcing report to refresh

I have a RS report that I am integrating in to an ASP web site. I have
a menu page that gathers some user parameters (report dates etc) and
then opens the report in a new browser window, passing the user
parameters as querystring variables. I have noticed that the report
does not refresh if you use the same parameters twice in a row. For
example, I opened the report, tweaked the underlying data then ran it
again with the exact same parameters. The report did not channge. It
did change when I hit the refresh button in the report itself though. I
would prefer if my users did not have to perform this additional step.
Is there a parameter I can pass, or some other way to force this to
refresh every time?I never found a parameter that RS recognizes to automatically refresh
the report. What I ended up doing was to make up my own. Basically, I
pass all the parameters the report takes, plus another querystring
variable I called "GenDate", which contains the current date and time.
Than way the report parameters are always different, so the report
always refreshes. The problem with this is that RS does not like to
receive any parameters that it is not expecting, so I have to add this
parameter to every report. I just add it as a report parameter, but
don't associate it with anything in the recordset.
If anyone knows of a parameter the RS will recognize, please let me
know. For that matter, is there a master list somewhere? I have a few
that RS tacks on automatically (rs:Command=Render, rs:Format=HTML4.0,
rc:Toolbar=True, rc:JavaScript=True, rc:LinkTarget=_top,
rc:Area=Report), but the documentation is rather sparse.|||I finally came across rs:ClearSession=True which appears to accomplish
what I'm after.sql

Forcing Function recompilation in SQL 2000

A stored procedure in the cache is automatically recompiled when a table it refers to has a table structure change. User defined functions are not. Here's a simplified code sample:

set nocount on
go

create table tmpTest (a int, b int, c int)

insert into tmpTest (a, b, c) values (1, 2, 3)
insert into tmpTest (a, b, c) values (2, 3, 4)
go

if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where id = object_id(N'[dbo].[fTest]') and xtype in (N'FN', N'IF', N'TF'))
drop function [dbo].[fTest]
GO

CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fTest (@.a int)
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN (SELECT * from tmpTest where a = @.a)
GO

select * from fTest(1)

CREATE TABLE dbo.Tmp_tmpTest
(
a int NULL,
b int NULL,
d int NULL,
c int NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.tmpTest)
EXEC('INSERT INTO dbo.Tmp_tmpTest (a, b, c)
SELECT a, b, c FROM dbo.tmpTest TABLOCKX')
DROP TABLE dbo.tmpTest
EXECUTE sp_rename N'dbo.Tmp_tmpTest', N'tmpTest', 'OBJECT'

select * from fTest(1)

drop table tmpTest

Running it, the output is:

a b c
-- -- --
1 2 3

Caution: Changing any part of an object name could break scripts and stored procedures.
The OBJECT was renamed to 'tmpTest'.
a b c
-- -- --
1 2 NULL

(I know that "select *" is bad, but it's a lot of legacy code that I'm working with here, and that's how it's written.)

The function doesn't detect that the table has changed in structure, or even that there is no longer a dependency on tmpTest. (Appending a column rather than inserting has the same effect, in that only the first 3 columns are returned.)

DBCC FREEPROCCACHE has no effect, not that I really expected it to, but you never know...

Is there any way, other than dropping and recreating, to force a recompilation of a particular function in memory, or perhaps all functions?

Thanks in anticipation.

Tom

try this example from the Books Online...

USE pubs IF EXISTS (SELECT name FROM sysobjects WHERE name = 'titles_by_author' AND type = 'P') DROP PROCEDURE titles_by_author GO CREATE PROCEDURE titles_by_author @.@.LNAME_PATTERN varchar(30) = '%' WITH RECOMPILE AS SELECT RTRIM(au_fname) + ' ' + RTRIM(au_lname) AS 'Authors full name', title AS Title FROM authors a INNER JOIN titleauthor ta ON a.au_id = ta.au_id INNER JOIN titles t ON ta.title_id = t.title_id WHERE au_lname LIKE @.@.LNAME_PATTERN GO |||

Thanks for the suggestion. Just one small point:

It's a function, not a procedure. And WITH RECOMPILE isn't a valid option for a function.

Tom

|||It is because of the SELECT *. Inline table-valued function is similar to view in that the metadata for the columns are persisted at the time of creation of the function. So in your example, the * in the select list will get resolved to table/columns at creation time. You will have to run ALTER FUNCTION or drop/recreate the function to recreate the correct metadata in current versions of SQL Server. SQL Server 2005 SP2 will have a new system stored procedure that can be used to refresh such metadata for SPs, UDFs. This will be similar to sp_refreshview SP. Of course, you wouldn't get into these problems if you specified column names explicitly.

Force user to Change their password

Is there a way in sql server 2000 to force users to change their passwords periodically?Hi,

There is now setting you can configure to do so. But master..syslogins has a column (updatedate) so you could make a job that select every login that havent change their password for, let say for a, month.

Select loginname from master..syslogins where datediff(Month,updatedate,getdate())>1


Now you can decide if you make a cursor that change all the password (which givs you the problem too tell users) or you email them ask them to do so.

I hope this is useful
/Mada|||I think it's master.dbo.sysxlogins which contains a field named xdate2 which is basically the last time the password was changed.But the fact is that there is no other way to do this,unless you email the users about their password expiration.Sybase has a "Sysetmwide password configuration option" which was very useful in defining the serverwide password expiration dyas.|||Hi Old hand,

If you use NT-account in your sql server you can set a expiration period in the user manager.

/Mada

Force to Render to PDF

Hi
Is it possible to force a report to always render in a specific format (in
this case PDF) and remove the option for the user to change the format in
Report Manager
Thanks
PuddyUsing the standard front end, the answer is no...
You have the capability to modify XML configuration files to expose new
render formats, or to prevent the display and use of existing formats, but
this applies to all users..
To do a custom thing, you'd have to write the front using the API or URL
access with the render command...
You could also perhaps hide the report, then add an html page which simply
calls the URL passing the PDF renderer - That might work for you..
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it'''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"Puddy" wrote:
> Hi
> Is it possible to force a report to always render in a specific format (in
> this case PDF) and remove the option for the user to change the format in
> Report Manager
> Thanks
> Puddysql

Force SQL Server Database offline

I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried using
Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get 5070
error (user connected)
1) Please define "locking up the server".
2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong on
this though.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
> the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
> using
> Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get
> 5070
> error (user connected)
|||Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left in.
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong on
> this though.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
back online. At least that is my understanding.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left
> in.
> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
|||Kevin,
Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long rollback
in SQL Server 2000:
I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It appeared
that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction log,
actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it slowly
rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%, then
0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
experience, for what it is worth.
RLF
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
>transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
>will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
>back online. At least that is my understanding.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Even if you restart the service , SQL Server will recover each database on
startup. And on this praticular database with redo/undo transactions it may
take ages. If you have the backup along with log backup I'd reccomend to
stop the server, drop the database --restart and restore the database.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Russell;
>
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
|||Linchi,
Yes, that is a good question. The answer is, we had some code in those days
that caused this problem more than once. So, I got to practice both paths -
(a) restart the server, and (b) wait it out - at least two or three times.
Then the problem finally got solved.
So, despite everything we hold dear, it really was much (more than an hour)
faster. I do understand the logic of roll-forward and rollback, and the
arguments for why it is a bad idea and why it should not have worked. (But
it did.)
And, No, I have not done it in many years now. I just tell people that they
have to wait and that the code must be revised. :-)
RLF
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Russell;
>
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:

Force SQL Server Database offline

I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried using
Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get 5070
error (user connected)1) Please define "locking up the server".
2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong on
this though.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
> the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
> using
> Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get
> 5070
> error (user connected)|||Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left in.
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong
on
> this though.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
back online. At least that is my understanding.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left
> in.
> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
>|||Kevin,
Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long rollback
in SQL Server 2000:
I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It appeared
that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction log,
actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it slowly
rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%, then
0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
experience, for what it is worth.
RLF
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
>transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
>will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
>back online. At least that is my understanding.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
>|||Russell;

> At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
> allowing a long rollback to continue.
How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback? How
did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if you
had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
Linchi
"Russell Fields" wrote:

> Kevin,
> Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlie
r,
> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
> allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
> much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
> desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
> thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
> One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long rollbac
k
> in SQL Server 2000:
> I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It appear
ed
> that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction lo
g,
> actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
> This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
> not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
> 1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
> 2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it slow
ly
> rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
> 3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
> finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
> Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%, th
en
> 0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
> In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
> experience, for what it is worth.
> RLF
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>
>|||Even if you restart the service , SQL Server will recover each database on
startup. And on this praticular database with redo/undo transactions it may
take ages. If you have the backup along with log backup I'd reccomend to
stop the server, drop the database --restart and restore the database.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Russell;
>
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>|||Linchi,
Yes, that is a good question. The answer is, we had some code in those days
that caused this problem more than once. So, I got to practice both paths -
(a) restart the server, and (b) wait it out - at least two or three times.
Then the problem finally got solved.
So, despite everything we hold dear, it really was much (more than an hour)
faster. I do understand the logic of roll-forward and rollback, and the
arguments for why it is a bad idea and why it should not have worked. (But
it did.)
And, No, I have not done it in many years now. I just tell people that they
have to wait and that the code must be revised. :-)
RLF
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Russell;
>
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>

Force SQL Server Database offline

I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried using
Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get 5070
error (user connected)1) Please define "locking up the server".
2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong on
this though.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
> the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
> using
> Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get
> 5070
> error (user connected)|||Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left in.
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong on
> this though.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking up
> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
> > using
> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get
> > 5070
> > error (user connected)
>
>|||I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
back online. At least that is my understanding.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is more
> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left
> in.
> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
>> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
>> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
>> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be wrong
>> on
>> this though.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is locking
>> >up
>> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
>> > using
>> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger. get
>> > 5070
>> > error (user connected)
>>|||Kevin,
Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long rollback
in SQL Server 2000:
I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It appeared
that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction log,
actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it slowly
rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%, then
0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
experience, for what it is worth.
RLF
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
>transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
>will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
>back online. At least that is my understanding.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
>> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
>> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is
>> more
>> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left
>> in.
>> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
>> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
>> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
>> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be
>> wrong on
>> this though.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is
>> >locking up
>> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
>> > using
>> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger.
>> > get
>> > 5070
>> > error (user connected)
>>
>|||Russell;
> At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
> allowing a long rollback to continue.
How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback? How
did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if you
had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
Linchi
"Russell Fields" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster than
> allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
> much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
> desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
> thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
> One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long rollback
> in SQL Server 2000:
> I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It appeared
> that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction log,
> actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
> This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
> not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
> 1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
> 2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it slowly
> rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
> 3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
> finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
> Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%, then
> 0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
> In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
> experience, for what it is worth.
> RLF
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
> >I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
> >transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the server
> >will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
> >back online. At least that is my understanding.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin G. Boles
> > TheSQLGuru
> > Indicium Resources, Inc.
> >
> >
> > "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
> >> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice of
> >> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is
> >> more
> >> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be left
> >> in.
> >>
> >> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
> >>
> >> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
> >> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be
> >> wrong on
> >> this though.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin G. Boles
> >> TheSQLGuru
> >> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
> >> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is
> >> >locking up
> >> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I tried
> >> > using
> >> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger.
> >> > get
> >> > 5070
> >> > error (user connected)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||Even if you restart the service , SQL Server will recover each database on
startup. And on this praticular database with redo/undo transactions it may
take ages. If you have the backup along with log backup I'd reccomend to
stop the server, drop the database --restart and restore the database.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...
> Russell;
>> At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
>> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster
>> than
>> allowing a long rollback to continue.
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>> Kevin,
>> Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and
>> earlier,
>> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster
>> than
>> allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
>> much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
>> desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
>> thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
>> One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long
>> rollback
>> in SQL Server 2000:
>> I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It
>> appeared
>> that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction
>> log,
>> actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
>> This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
>> not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
>> 1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
>> 2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it
>> slowly
>> rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
>> 3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
>> finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
>> Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%,
>> then
>> 0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
>> In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
>> experience, for what it is worth.
>> RLF
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>> >I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
>> >transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the
>> >server
>> >will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
>> >back online. At least that is my understanding.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kevin G. Boles
>> > TheSQLGuru
>> > Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
>> >> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice
>> >> of
>> >> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is
>> >> more
>> >> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be
>> >> left
>> >> in.
>> >>
>> >> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
>> >>
>> >> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
>> >> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be
>> >> wrong on
>> >> this though.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kevin G. Boles
>> >> TheSQLGuru
>> >> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is
>> >> >locking up
>> >> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I
>> >> > tried
>> >> > using
>> >> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger.
>> >> > get
>> >> > 5070
>> >> > error (user connected)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>|||Linchi,
Yes, that is a good question. The answer is, we had some code in those days
that caused this problem more than once. So, I got to practice both paths -
(a) restart the server, and (b) wait it out - at least two or three times.
Then the problem finally got solved.
So, despite everything we hold dear, it really was much (more than an hour)
faster. I do understand the logic of roll-forward and rollback, and the
arguments for why it is a bad idea and why it should not have worked. (But
it did.)
And, No, I have not done it in many years now. I just tell people that they
have to wait and that the code must be revised. :-)
RLF
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3FDF4345-EF14-48AA-935A-0F4F36DA223F@.microsoft.com...
> Russell;
>> At least in SQL Server 2000 and earlier,
>> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster
>> than
>> allowing a long rollback to continue.
> How did you know that restarting SQL was faster in finishing a rollback?
> How
> did you know that the rollback would not have taken as long to finish if
> you
> had allowed it to finish without restarting SQL? Just curious.
> Linchi
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>> Kevin,
>> Not that I recommend this, but... At least in SQL Server 2000 and
>> earlier,
>> shutting down the SQL Server and restarting it could indeed be faster
>> than
>> allowing a long rollback to continue. It seems that the roll-forward was
>> much faster than the rollback. The few times that I did this (in
>> desperation) I found no evidence of corruption. (But it is the sort of
>> thing to make a DBA nervous, which is why I don't recommend it.)
>> One Upon A Time... I uncovered one possible reason for a very long
>> rollback
>> in SQL Server 2000:
>> I had an extremely busy database and it was very trigger heavy. It
>> appeared
>> that all of the trigger activity, which in 2000 scanned the transaction
>> log,
>> actually hindered the rollback log processing from making much headway.
>> This is inferred from monitoring a very long rollback. (Obviously, I did
>> not restart the SQL Server this time.) The scenario was:
>> 1. Long, out-of-control process had to be terminated. KILL SPID
>> 2. Monitoring through the afternoon with KILL SPID WITH STATUSONLY it
>> slowly
>> rewound to about 80% remaining to rollback.
>> 3. At the end of the day, as the load on the database disappeared, it
>> finished rolling back in less than 30 minutes.
>> Assuming you those numbers were trustworthy: 3.5 hours to rollback 20%,
>> then
>> 0.5 hours to rollback 80%.
>> In SQL Server 2005 over the last 18 months I have not had a similar
>> experience, for what it is worth.
>> RLF
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13lbf5bgbd4uf8a@.corp.supernews.com...
>> >I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop a rolling back
>> >transaction from affecting other work. Even pulling the plug on the
>> >server
>> >will simply reset the rollback and it will restart when the server comes
>> >back online. At least that is my understanding.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kevin G. Boles
>> > TheSQLGuru
>> > Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Gary Mazzone" <GaryMazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:C47C0B62-B86D-46E1-9376-08E5F5E7FAD7@.microsoft.com...
>> >> Yes it is in a rollback state. I guess locking up is the wrong choice
>> >> of
>> >> words where. The transction is blocking other work on the DB that is
>> >> more
>> >> important. I don't care about the state that the database would be
>> >> left
>> >> in.
>> >>
>> >> "TheSQLGuru" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Please define "locking up the server".
>> >>
>> >> 2) I would imagine that you can't alter database state (i.e. take it
>> >> offline) while it is undergoing a transaction rollback. I could be
>> >> wrong on
>> >> this though.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kevin G. Boles
>> >> TheSQLGuru
>> >> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Gary Mazzone" <Gary Mazzone@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:D68070F1-6F2C-4813-86A7-10D2D8FDEA07@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >I had a user kill a process that is now doing a rollback that is
>> >> >locking up
>> >> > the server. Is there any way to force that databse offline? I
>> >> > tried
>> >> > using
>> >> > Alter Database offline in Query analyser and in Enterprise Manger.
>> >> > get
>> >> > 5070
>> >> > error (user connected)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>sql

Force Protocol Encryption Enabled & SQL Server Cannot Start

I'm running SQL 2000 Server with Windows service account with a normal user
privileges.
However, whenever I turn on Force Protocol Encryption (the cert is already
installed), the server does not start.
I suspect that it's to do with the service account which does not have
rights to the cert. How do I grant the service account with sufficient
privilege to read the cert so that Force Protocol Encryption can be enabled?
Thanks.How SQL Server uses a certificate when the Force Protocol Encryption option
is set on http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318605
How SQL Server verifies that a certificate is valid
â?¢ The certificate's Enhanced Key Usage property has to be turned on for
Server Authentication. To verify that the certificate is used for server
authentication, use the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) Certificate
snap-in. Double-click the certificate name, and then select Details. Click
the Enhanced Key Usage property, and then verify that the value is: Server
Authentication(1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1).
â?¢ Make sure that the certificate name is the same as the SQL Server FQDN or
the value configured in the registry (as described earlier).
â?¢ You must install the certificate to the Certificates\Current User Personal
Certificates folder while you are logged on as the SQL Server startup
account. This will make sure that the certificate will be put in the Personal
Certificates folder of the SQL Server startup account. If you have logged on
with a user account that is different from the SQL Server startup account,
put the certificate in the Certificates\Local Computer Personal Certificates
folder. This action solves the problem of having certificates stored under
the wrong user account.
To view the Current User folder, follow these steps:1. Logon as the SQL
Server startup account.
2. Use the MMC Certificates snap-in to verify the location of the
certificate.
FIX: Cannot Use Non-Administrator Account to Start SQL Server and Force
Encryption http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314636
"James" wrote:
> I'm running SQL 2000 Server with Windows service account with a normal user
> privileges.
> However, whenever I turn on Force Protocol Encryption (the cert is already
> installed), the server does not start.
> I suspect that it's to do with the service account which does not have
> rights to the cert. How do I grant the service account with sufficient
> privilege to read the cert so that Force Protocol Encryption can be enabled?
> Thanks.

Force Modification of a User Defined Function

Is there a way to force the modification of a User Defined Function upon which depend other objects.

This is the message:

Msg 3729, Level 16, State 3, Procedure FunctionName, Line 22

Cannot ALTER 'FunctionName' because it is being referenced by object 'OtherObject'.

I have 48 objects related to the function and each time I need modify the function is a big pain.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Best Regards

ggpnetwork

Sorry, but AFAIK there is no switch to do so. If you have a computede column are something else bound to that function you have to drop and recreate the referencing object / Column or something else.

HTH; Jens Suessmeyer.|||We have currently ran into this issue but found the following solution helpful.

Originally, we were adding a scalar function to a computed column in a table. We received the same error message whenever we attempted to modify the scalar function.

However, if we created a view of the same table and included the scalar function as a column, we were able to modify the scalar without problems. That is to say, we were able to modify the scalar function definition (not the view result) without problems.

Hope this helps,
Daniel

Force Modification of a User Defined Function

Is there a way to force the modification of a User Defined Function upon which depend other objects.

This is the message:

Msg 3729, Level 16, State 3, Procedure FunctionName, Line 22

Cannot ALTER 'FunctionName' because it is being referenced by object 'OtherObject'.

I have 48 objects related to the function and each time I need modify the function is a big pain.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Best Regards

ggpnetwork

Sorry, but AFAIK there is no switch to do so. If you have a computede column are something else bound to that function you have to drop and recreate the referencing object / Column or something else.

HTH; Jens Suessmeyer.|||We have currently ran into this issue but found the following solution helpful.

Originally, we were adding a scalar function to a computed column in a table. We received the same error message whenever we attempted to modify the scalar function.

However, if we created a view of the same table and included the scalar function as a column, we were able to modify the scalar without problems. That is to say, we were able to modify the scalar function definition (not the view result) without problems.

Hope this helps,
Daniel

force close connections

hello!
is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connections?
i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, only
the user ones.
Thanks!!!!Not directly. Is this for a certain database? If so, perhaps setting database option restricted user
might help. Also, when you set a database option, you have a rollback option, which will kick out
existing users.
If above doesn't suit you, you could always write a cursor which loops something like sysprocesses
and uses dynamic SQL to KILL the spids you don't want to keep.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"DarthSidious" <DarthSidious@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EAF6BCAC-A658-43B9-AEF7-C16423C43210@.microsoft.com...
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connections?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, only
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!|||On Apr 16, 7:03=A0am, DarthSidious
<DarthSidi...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connection=s?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, on=ly
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!
Here is what I use - just pass the database name and run in master:
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[utl_KillUsers] @.dbname varchar(50) as
SET NOCOUNT ON
DECLARE @.strSQL varchar(255)
CREATE table #tmpUsers(
spid int,
eid int,
status varchar(30),
loginname varchar(50),
hostname varchar(50),
blk int,
dbname varchar(50),
cmd varchar(30),
request_id int )
INSERT INTO #tmpUsers EXEC SP_WHO
DECLARE LoginCursor CURSOR
READ_ONLY
FOR SELECT spid, dbname FROM #tmpUsers WHERE dbname =3D @.dbname
DECLARE @.spid varchar(10)
DECLARE @.dbname2 varchar(40)
OPEN LoginCursor
FETCH NEXT FROM LoginCursor INTO @.spid, @.dbname2
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
IF (@.@.fetch_status <> -2)
BEGIN
PRINT 'Killing ' + @.spid
SET @.strSQL =3D 'KILL ' + @.spid
EXEC (@.strSQL)
END
FETCH NEXT FROM LoginCursor INTO @.spid, @.dbname2
END
CLOSE LoginCursor
DEALLOCATE LoginCursor
DROP table #tmpUsers|||In sql 2005 you can also set a database to single user mode and use the WITH
ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE flag. See ALTER DATABASE in BOL. If you wanted to
disconnect ALL user connections you would need to do this for every user
database.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"DarthSidious" <DarthSidious@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EAF6BCAC-A658-43B9-AEF7-C16423C43210@.microsoft.com...
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER
> connections?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections,
> only
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!

force close connections

hello!
is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connections?
i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, only
the user ones.
Thanks!!!!
Not directly. Is this for a certain database? If so, perhaps setting database option restricted user
might help. Also, when you set a database option, you have a rollback option, which will kick out
existing users.
If above doesn't suit you, you could always write a cursor which loops something like sysprocesses
and uses dynamic SQL to KILL the spids you don't want to keep.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"DarthSidious" <DarthSidious@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EAF6BCAC-A658-43B9-AEF7-C16423C43210@.microsoft.com...
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connections?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, only
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!
|||On Apr 16, 7:03Xam, DarthSidious
<DarthSidi...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER connections?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections, only
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!
Here is what I use - just pass the database name and run in master:
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[utl_KillUsers] @.dbname varchar(50) as
SET NOCOUNT ON
DECLARE @.strSQL varchar(255)
CREATE table #tmpUsers(
spid int,
eid int,
status varchar(30),
loginname varchar(50),
hostname varchar(50),
blk int,
dbname varchar(50),
cmd varchar(30),
request_id int )
INSERT INTO #tmpUsers EXEC SP_WHO
DECLARE LoginCursor CURSOR
READ_ONLY
FOR SELECT spid, dbname FROM #tmpUsers WHERE dbname = @.dbname
DECLARE @.spid varchar(10)
DECLARE @.dbname2 varchar(40)
OPEN LoginCursor
FETCH NEXT FROM LoginCursor INTO @.spid, @.dbname2
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
IF (@.@.fetch_status <> -2)
BEGIN
PRINT 'Killing ' + @.spid
SET @.strSQL = 'KILL ' + @.spid
EXEC (@.strSQL)
END
FETCH NEXT FROM LoginCursor INTO @.spid, @.dbname2
END
CLOSE LoginCursor
DEALLOCATE LoginCursor
DROP table #tmpUsers
|||In sql 2005 you can also set a database to single user mode and use the WITH
ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE flag. See ALTER DATABASE in BOL. If you wanted to
disconnect ALL user connections you would need to do this for every user
database.
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"DarthSidious" <DarthSidious@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EAF6BCAC-A658-43B9-AEF7-C16423C43210@.microsoft.com...
> hello!
> is there any way to force the server to close all existing USER
> connections?
> i mean, not the system connections or the sql server agent connections,
> only
> the user ones.
> Thanks!!!!

For a user of RS2000 but a non-programmer

Can someone tell me how to utilize the new calendar control in 2005. do i
have it right that it is supposed to give me a pop-up to choose a date from?
I have looked all over the msdn and the newsgroup here and havent found
anything real definitive. it could very well be that i dont know what im
looking for. i found learning the reporting service to be fairly intuitive
and well documented enough to do basic reporting with little programming.
so im wondering since i cant find out how to do this if it is because it
requires a code-behind. if it does could you point me to the docs on how.
i may be able to trudge through it with my limited programming knowledge.
TIA for any help.
MattWhat is most likely happening is that your parameter is defined as text, not
as a date/time. If date/time it automatically shows up. In layout mode,
Report menu, Report Parameters. Click on the parameter and change to
date/time.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Matt" <Matt@.matt.com> wrote in message
news:ugk9pK37FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Can someone tell me how to utilize the new calendar control in 2005. do i
> have it right that it is supposed to give me a pop-up to choose a date
> from?
> I have looked all over the msdn and the newsgroup here and havent found
> anything real definitive. it could very well be that i dont know what im
> looking for. i found learning the reporting service to be fairly
> intuitive
> and well documented enough to do basic reporting with little programming.
> so im wondering since i cant find out how to do this if it is because it
> requires a code-behind. if it does could you point me to the docs on how.
> i may be able to trudge through it with my limited programming knowledge.
> TIA for any help.
> Matt
>|||that was way to easy....one last question...you dont get to get away that
easy...is there a time option...i want to add a default time...would i
have to add the time string to the end of the parm field once i get it
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23iQfT%2337FHA.1864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What is most likely happening is that your parameter is defined as text,
not
> as a date/time. If date/time it automatically shows up. In layout mode,
> Report menu, Report Parameters. Click on the parameter and change to
> date/time.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Matt" <Matt@.matt.com> wrote in message
> news:ugk9pK37FHA.3804@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Can someone tell me how to utilize the new calendar control in 2005. do
i
> > have it right that it is supposed to give me a pop-up to choose a date
> > from?
> >
> > I have looked all over the msdn and the newsgroup here and havent found
> > anything real definitive. it could very well be that i dont know what
im
> > looking for. i found learning the reporting service to be fairly
> > intuitive
> > and well documented enough to do basic reporting with little
programming.
> > so im wondering since i cant find out how to do this if it is because it
> > requires a code-behind. if it does could you point me to the docs on
how.
> > i may be able to trudge through it with my limited programming
knowledge.
> >
> > TIA for any help.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>