Development Problems

Hi
Hope someone can help. I have a few legacy databases running on SQL Server
(developed before my time) which have a # in the name of the database.
I have been trying to write some reports that run off these databases
however whenever I attempt to preview or deploy the report I get an error
"Unable to access '/c'". I have narrowed it down to being something to do
with the # sign through moving things onto a test rig and removing the #
from the DB names and all is fine, however this is not really an option on
the live system.
My question is, does anyone know a way that I can get round this problem in
Reporting Services so I dont have to go through the process of modifying
about 20 different systems?
Thanks in advance.You could try placing the dbname within [], as in [pubs]
The brackets should take away any special meaning.
"Steven Clark" <sjc@.nospam.uk-support.net> wrote in message
news:hOOdnWLBBO7bvXHcRVnyrQ@.eclipse.net.uk...
> Hi
> Hope someone can help. I have a few legacy databases running on SQL
> Server (developed before my time) which have a # in the name of the
> database.
> I have been trying to write some reports that run off these databases
> however whenever I attempt to preview or deploy the report I get an error
> "Unable to access '/c'". I have narrowed it down to being something to do
> with the # sign through moving things onto a test rig and removing the #
> from the DB names and all is fine, however this is not really an option on
> the live system.
> My question is, does anyone know a way that I can get round this problem
> in Reporting Services so I dont have to go through the process of
> modifying about 20 different systems?
> Thanks in advance.
>

Developer Edition / Desktop Edition

I'm developing a windows (c#) application that currently uses SQL 2000. I've
developed the app using Developer Edition on my laptop.
The requirements of the app, are such that when the user is not at the
office, they can still use the application on thier laptop, but use a local
copy of the database. So I thought..ok just provide Desktop Edition with the
application.
Can I install Desktop Edition on my development machine with out messing up
the Developer Edition installation? What I'm concerned with is hosing my
currently installed DE.
As part of the application, I want the user to be able to use a Desktop
version of the database so when not at the office, the user can still use th
e
application.Jeff,
The short answer is yes you can do this. Is Developer Edition currently
installed as the default instance? If so, MSDE would have to be a named
instance. Honestly, I've never had a need to do this, so I'm not 100% sure
about exact installation needs. But I know 100% it is supported. You'll find
some good info if you google
install sql MSDE named instance
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Jeff" <nowhere@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:507FB9A4-80E6-4099-AEBD-E248434965B0@.microsoft.com...
> I'm developing a windows (c#) application that currently uses SQL 2000.
I've
> developed the app using Developer Edition on my laptop.
> The requirements of the app, are such that when the user is not at the
> office, they can still use the application on thier laptop, but use a
local
> copy of the database. So I thought..ok just provide Desktop Edition with
the
> application.
> Can I install Desktop Edition on my development machine with out messing
up
> the Developer Edition installation? What I'm concerned with is hosing my
> currently installed DE.
>
>
>
>
>
> As part of the application, I want the user to be able to use a Desktop
> version of the database so when not at the office, the user can still use
the
> application.

Developer Edition / Desktop Edition

I'm developing a windows (c#) application that currently uses SQL 2000. I've
developed the app using Developer Edition on my laptop.
The requirements of the app, are such that when the user is not at the
office, they can still use the application on thier laptop, but use a local
copy of the database. So I thought..ok just provide Desktop Edition with the
application.
Can I install Desktop Edition on my development machine with out messing up
the Developer Edition installation? What I'm concerned with is hosing my
currently installed DE.
As part of the application, I want the user to be able to use a Desktop
version of the database so when not at the office, the user can still use the
application.Jeff,
The short answer is yes you can do this. Is Developer Edition currently
installed as the default instance? If so, MSDE would have to be a named
instance. Honestly, I've never had a need to do this, so I'm not 100% sure
about exact installation needs. But I know 100% it is supported. You'll find
some good info if you google
install sql MSDE named instance
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Jeff" <nowhere@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:507FB9A4-80E6-4099-AEBD-E248434965B0@.microsoft.com...
> I'm developing a windows (c#) application that currently uses SQL 2000.
I've
> developed the app using Developer Edition on my laptop.
> The requirements of the app, are such that when the user is not at the
> office, they can still use the application on thier laptop, but use a
local
> copy of the database. So I thought..ok just provide Desktop Edition with
the
> application.
> Can I install Desktop Edition on my development machine with out messing
up
> the Developer Edition installation? What I'm concerned with is hosing my
> currently installed DE.
>
>
>
>
>
> As part of the application, I want the user to be able to use a Desktop
> version of the database so when not at the office, the user can still use
the
> application.

Developed one Report in Excel and want to Deploy on Report Server

I have created one SQL Server OLAP Report through Excel. I want to deploy this report on Report Server. Is it possible?

Regards,

Dinesh Patel

Unfortunately this is not a supported scenario.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

developed in 2005, need to go back to 2000

I've developed a web application and to be honest I've been a bit dumb and not checked with my hosts. I assumed they used SQL Server 2005. But no, they only use 2000.

I'm sure I'll come across more problems but the first I'm having is I've used the ROW_NUMBER() function in a few stored procedures, but in 2000 I'm getting this error message

'ROW_NUMBER' is not a recognized function name.

Here is the stored procedure for reference

SELECT RowNumFROM (SELECT id, category, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY id) as RowNum FROM custrecords ) as CustRecord

anyone know the SQL Server 2000 equivalent?

Regrettably ROW_NUMBER is a new feature with SQL2005.

What precisely are you trying to achive with your SELECT statement?

|||

there isn't a equivalent of row_number() in SQL Server 2000. Depending on your requirement, you can use a subquery something like

select count(*) from tbl where <condition>

to do it.

Maybe you can explain what are you trying to do here. Or alternatively do the row numbering in your ASP.NET

|||

khtan:

there isn't a equivalent of row_number() in SQL Server 2000. Depending on your requirement, you can use a subquery something like

select count(*) from tbl where <condition>?

to do it.

Maybe you can explain what are you trying to do here. Or alternatively do the row numbering in your ASP.NET
?

thanks khtan, I'll try using the Count keyword method instead|||

Provided you read the dataset first, you can also have output parameters on the stored procedure that gets your batch size. Have a look at http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041206-1.shtml (Efficiently Paging Through Large Result Sets in SQL Server 2000)

|||

TATWORTH:

Provided you read the dataset first, you can also have output parameters on the stored procedure that gets your batch size. Have a look at http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041206-1.shtml ( Efficiently Paging Through Large Result Sets in SQL Server 2000)

wow, thanks tatworth. I started on the tutorial link you supplied above and eventually found myself doing the tutorial (A more efficent method for paging through large result sets : link below)

http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/042606-1.shtml

But I've hit a problem. Like I say I've done the tut above and it works great...if you only want the results to be in order of id.

I'm trying to change the order by other fields (name, date of birth) but I'm not getting anywhere.

Any one any tips?

|||

Please always remember when using output parameters and a dataset, to read the dataset before the output parameters - there is a "bug"/"feature" that only populates the output parameters after the dataset has been read.

As to your sort problem, the solution pobably lies along using "date of birth and id" instead of just "date of birth" - please post an example of the revised TSQL together with a script to create the table. I will look at it and attempt a fix the problem; however it may not be until next weekend that I can look at it.

|||

TATWORTH:

Please always remember when using output parameters and a dataset, to read the dataset before the output parameters - there is a "bug"/"feature" that only populates the output parameters after the dataset has been read.

As to your sort problem, the solution pobably lies along using "date of birth and id" instead of just "date of birth" - please post an example of the revised TSQL together with a script to create the table. I will look at it and attempt a fix the problem; however it may not be until next weekend that I can look at it.

wow, thanks tatworth

This is the stored procedure I created from the tutorial above, like I say it works if the order by is id, anything else and it doesn't work

ALTER PROCEDURE uk_members
(
@.username VarChar(20),
@.startRowIndex int,
@.maximumRows int
)
AS
DECLARE @.first_id int

SET ROWCOUNT @.startRowIndex

SELECT @.first_id = id FROM uk_orders
WHERE (username=@.username) AND (itemstat <> 'DELETE') ORDER BY id

SET ROWCOUNT @.maximumRows

SELECT id, username, suppliername, product, quantity
FROM uk_orders WHERE
(id >= @.first_id) AND (username=@.username) AND (suppliername <> 'SMITHS') ORDER BY id

SET ROWCOUNT 0

I've been messing around with the code but not got anywhere.

I really appreciate your help and of course anyone else offering any help is also really appreciated.