Difference between Shrinking a DB and a FILE

Hi,

What is the difference between shrinking a DB with that of a file.

When you select a DB to shrink will it not shrink all the files in it.

Because when I select Files to shrink it does not prompt me with
a specific file.

So I am confused as to why SQL server 2K5 asks if you need to shrink DB or FILE

Tnx

Shrink database shrinks all the files in a database, shrink file shrinks one specific file in a database.

The way that data files(.mdfs) and log files(.ldfs) shrink is different, you should read in Books On Line about it.

Difference between multiple primary and secondary files..

Hi all..!

If I want to split an SQL DB into several physical files (as its 500GB
disk ran out of space, won't even run shrinks any more, and we bought
another 500GB disk to add to the PC)
then what is the difference between:
Adding another File to the primary group which will reside on the new
group;
Adding another file in another group.
We do not want to set any db objects (Tables, indexes)
to a secondary file, as this will involve lengthy data moving
operations. We would like the DB to continue working from where it is
utilizing the added space in a contigous (striped) manner.

Will striping occur in both cases? as I understand striping it means
that our stuck SQL Server will awake back to life as it will now have
500GB more data for its DB, even though we haven't set any of its
objects (tables, indexes) to explicitly use the secondary NDF file on
the new disk?
or will it only utilize the new space if we set some objects to reside
on that NDF?

for example if we run large queries which crash now (due to lack of
space) when we add the second drive will they start to work as the
process will grow striped from the full drive to the new drive, even if
all the queries' source tables are all still set to the old drive?

Thanks for any replies?(developmental2@.walla.com) writes:
> If I want to split an SQL DB into several physical files (as its 500GB
> disk ran out of space, won't even run shrinks any more, and we bought
> another 500GB disk to add to the PC)
> then what is the difference between:
> Adding another File to the primary group which will reside on the new
> group;
> Adding another file in another group.

If you add another filegroup, you need to move objects, as objects
below to a filegroup. Since you don't want to that, you should add
a secondary file to the primary filegroup.

I don't have much experience of secondary files myself, but I would
expect SQL Server start to spill over the new file, as soon as it is
available.

If you want to have certainty, it could be a good idea to set up a
small-size test, before you go ahead with the big database.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

Difference between indexing txt or word doc files, help!

Hi,
I'm putting together a system and one of the requirements is to have a
searchable CV function.
I've got all the code to load the files on to the image fields, I've indexed
and got it kinda working.
Before I go to far down the road what is your opinion on having txt files
instead of doc files held on the table search? The SQL seems to be more
flexible on
searches rather than on the binary files and the index files themselves are
smaller
..i.e. when I tried a like clause it told me this would only work against a
varchar field
(i'm thinking this may be a schoolboy error so forgive me)
My main concern is I'd have to do the text conversion automatically, any
pointers on this?
Does anyone have any views on the best way to go about this or views on
holding and full searches again word files
Many thanks for any help you can give
Jim Florence
Text means faster indexing times, but not by much. With text you can query
the columns and read the contents, you can't do this with binary.
Search SQL is equally as flexible with text and binary. You can only do a
like against text or char columns.
To do the conversion use filtdump -b (you can get this from the Platform
SDK), or you can use ole-automation against the word documents to extract
the text paragraph by paragraph.
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
"Jim Florence" <florence_james@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5IKdncUNWPRLowLeRVnyiQ@.pipex.net...
> Hi,
> I'm putting together a system and one of the requirements is to have a
> searchable CV function.
> I've got all the code to load the files on to the image fields, I've
> indexed
> and got it kinda working.
> Before I go to far down the road what is your opinion on having txt files
> instead of doc files held on the table search? The SQL seems to be more
> flexible on
> searches rather than on the binary files and the index files themselves
> are
> smaller
> .i.e. when I tried a like clause it told me this would only work against a
> varchar field
> (i'm thinking this may be a schoolboy error so forgive me)
> My main concern is I'd have to do the text conversion automatically, any
> pointers on this?
> Does anyone have any views on the best way to go about this or views on
> holding and full searches again word files
> Many thanks for any help you can give
> Jim Florence
>
>
|||Hilary,
Many thanks for that, very, very useful. I've started playing with the
indexing service as well to try and find a best fit.
I'll give this a go
many thanks for such a quick and informative response
Regards
Jim
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%236F1hKaAGHA.216@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Text means faster indexing times, but not by much. With text you can query
> the columns and read the contents, you can't do this with binary.
> Search SQL is equally as flexible with text and binary. You can only do a
> like against text or char columns.
> To do the conversion use filtdump -b (you can get this from the Platform
> SDK), or you can use ole-automation against the word documents to extract
> the text paragraph by paragraph.
> --
> 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
> "Jim Florence" <florence_james@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5IKdncUNWPRLowLeRVnyiQ@.pipex.net...
>

Difference between Backup/Restore & Attach/Detach

Can someone please clarify the difference between Detach / Attach of MDF/LDF
files versus the Backup / Restore of backup to device/file feature? Which
would be ideal for restores of actual databases?
Thank you.Transact-SQL BACKUP/RESTORE is the normal method for database backup and
recovery. Databases can be backed up while online. The backup file size is
usually smaller than the database files since only used pages are backed up.
Also, in the FULL or BULK_LOGGED recovery model, you can reduce potential
data loss by performing transaction log backups.
Detaching a database removes the database from SQL Server while leaving the
physical database files intact. This allows you to rename or move the
physical files and then re-attach. Although one could perform cold backups
using this technique, detach/attach isn't really intended to be used as a
backup/recovery process.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"KP" <kp@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23PtI97whFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Can someone please clarify the difference between Detach / Attach of
> MDF/LDF files versus the Backup / Restore of backup to device/file
> feature? Which would be ideal for restores of actual databases?
> Thank you.
>|||Thanks for the explanation. If I was to restore a WSS or SPS which uses SQL
that exists in one domain and restore to another domain - would the Backup /
Restore be better?
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u85i3JxhFHA.3316@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Transact-SQL BACKUP/RESTORE is the normal method for database backup and
> recovery. Databases can be backed up while online. The backup file size
> is usually smaller than the database files since only used pages are
> backed up. Also, in the FULL or BULK_LOGGED recovery model, you can reduce
> potential data loss by performing transaction log backups.
> Detaching a database removes the database from SQL Server while leaving
> the physical database files intact. This allows you to rename or move the
> physical files and then re-attach. Although one could perform cold
> backups using this technique, detach/attach isn't really intended to be
> used as a backup/recovery process.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "KP" <kp@.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23PtI97whFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Can someone please clarify the difference between Detach / Attach of
>> MDF/LDF files versus the Backup / Restore of backup to device/file
>> feature? Which would be ideal for restores of actual databases?
>> Thank you.
>|||I usually use backup/restore to move databases between servers. It doesn't
matter if the servers on a different domains.
After you restore to another box, you'll need to make sure you don't have
orphaned users. See sp_change_users_login in the Books Online for
information on how to report/correct the users.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"KP" <kp@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eiTM5UxhFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the explanation. If I was to restore a WSS or SPS which uses
> SQL that exists in one domain and restore to another domain - would the
> Backup / Restore be better?
>
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:u85i3JxhFHA.3316@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Transact-SQL BACKUP/RESTORE is the normal method for database backup and
>> recovery. Databases can be backed up while online. The backup file size
>> is usually smaller than the database files since only used pages are
>> backed up. Also, in the FULL or BULK_LOGGED recovery model, you can
>> reduce potential data loss by performing transaction log backups.
>> Detaching a database removes the database from SQL Server while leaving
>> the physical database files intact. This allows you to rename or move
>> the physical files and then re-attach. Although one could perform cold
>> backups using this technique, detach/attach isn't really intended to be
>> used as a backup/recovery process.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "KP" <kp@.msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23PtI97whFHA.3300@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Can someone please clarify the difference between Detach / Attach of
>> MDF/LDF files versus the Backup / Restore of backup to device/file
>> feature? Which would be ideal for restores of actual databases?
>> Thank you.
>>
>

Difference between .rdl and .rdlc files

What is the difference between reports created using Business Intelligence Projects Template and the reports created using .rdlc file which is present in the various file types displayed. Why SSRS needs to be installed when you can create reports using .rdlc file.

The way I understand it, .rdl is a server controlled report and .rdlc is a client-side controlled report. You have to deploy an .rdl file to a report server and access it using that server. With a .rdlc report, you can create the report and use a ReportViewer control to run the report in your application.

|||

RDL files are created by the SQL Server 2005 version of Report Designer. RDLC files are created by the Visual Studio 2005 version of Report Designer.

RDL and RDLC formats have the same XML schema. However, in RDLC files, some values (such as query text) are allowed to be empty, which means that they are not immediately ready to be published to a Report Server. The missing values can be entered by opening the RDLC file using the SQL Server 2005 version of Report Designer. (You have to rename .rdlc to .rdl first.)

RDL files are fully compatible with the ReportViewer control runtime. However, RDL files do not contain some information that the design-time of the ReportViewer control depends on for automatically generating data-binding code. Bymanually binding data, RDL files can be used in the ReportViewer control.

Note that the ReportViewer control does not contain any logic for connecting to databases or executing queries. By separating out such logic, the ReportViewer has been made compatible with all data sources, including non-database data sources. However this means that when an RDL file is used by the ReportViewer control, the SQL related information in the RDL file is simply ignored by the control. It is the host application's responsibility to connect to databases, execute queries and supply data to the ReportViewer control in the form of ADO.NET DataTables.

|||

Thanks Tamer Fathy. But I have certain doubts. I can build reports using the .rdlc files provided by VS 2005. The data could be fetched from any database.To display the report, we have got the reportviewer. The reports as far as I understand will be hosted on the application server not on Report Server as in case of
SSRS 2005. So what are the additional advantages of SSRS 2005 and what are the components that I should install to receive the benefits? I have got sql server 2000 as my backend.

Thanks in advance

|||

you don't need reporting service as you use rdlc read this areticle and see the samples

http://www.gotreportviewer.com/

|||

Thanks Tamer Fathy. But I did not understand the following abstract from the article you asked me to go through.

Q: Why doesn't the ReportViewer control support parameter prompting in local mode?

A: The ReportViewer control does not prompt for parameters when in local mode. It prompts for parameters when it is connected to a Report Server.

In local mode it does not make sense for ReportViewer to prompt for parameters. The rationale is as follows: The most common use of report parameters is to pass to queries as values of query parameters. But unlike the Report Server, the ReportViewer control does not execute queries itself. Rather, queries are executed by the host application, and the result is passed to the ReportViewer control. So the ReportViewer control does not have the opportunity to set query parameters. Applications should take advantage of the parameterization features of Visual Studio data wizards instead.

|||

You welcome any time :),

concerning your question it was easy, this is the difference between the RDL and RDLC in case you need to pass parameters to your reports if you use RDLC which in client side processing as get the data from the database and assign it to the report you need to handle the passing of the parameters by developing the form which get the parameters from the user and then use it in your query then when you get the results you pass it to the report to display.

but if you use server side processing you can use the report viewer control (custom control used to view reports in your application (web or windows)) to handle the parameti hope i explain it in good way and i help you

|||

Thanks Tamer Fathy. But I have one more doubt. Making use of .rdlc file type and the reportviewer provided by VS2005 instead of SSRS 2005 would mean that the reports will be on the application server rather than being hosted on the reportserver since I won't be having a seprate report server. Will this affect the performance of my application server?

Thanks in advance.

|||

no this will not affect your application performance as it wil be as you query the data base for specific data

Diff between xxx_data.mdf and xxx.mdf files

What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I create
d, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database fi
le name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file n
ame as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows da
tabase na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the log
ic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004I don't think there is any specific logic behind the file names really, it's
just what the naming convention was at the time the databases were created.
The actual database name is independent of the file name (and a database ca
n consist of multiple files anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to name t
he files after the database).
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Ashish Kanoongo" <ashishk@.armour.com> wrote in message news:e8c%23paoYEHA.3
988@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I create
d, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database fi
le name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file n
ame as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows da
tabase na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the log
ic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004

Diff between xxx_data.mdf and xxx.mdf files

What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004
I don't think there is any specific logic behind the file names really, it's just what the naming convention was at the time the databases were created. The actual database name is independent of the file name (and a database can consist of multiple files anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to name the files after the database).
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Ashish Kanoongo" <ashishk@.armour.com> wrote in message news:e8c%23paoYEHA.3988@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004

Diff between xxx_data.mdf and xxx.mdf files

What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004
There is no special significance to the suffixes _data and _log. They are
just the naming conventions used when the database was created. You can name
database files as anything you like, however the standard extensions for SQL
Server files are .MDF for data files and .LDF for log files.
MDB is the standard name for Access databases and isn't normally used for
SQL Server files.
(I've ignored your irrelevant cross-postings. Please don't cross-post. This
clearly has nothing to do with DTS, Clients or Connections so why post
there?)
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||I don't think there is any specific logic behind the file names really, it's just what the naming convention was at the time the databases were created. The actual database name is independent of the file name (and a database can consist of multiple files anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to name the files after the database).
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Ashish Kanoongo" <ashishk@.armour.com> wrote in message news:e8c%23paoYEHA.3988@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004
sql

Diff between xxx_data.mdf and xxx.mdf files

What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004
I don't think there is any specific logic behind the file names really, it's just what the naming convention was at the time the databases were created. The actual database name is independent of the file name (and a database can consist of multiple files anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to name the files after the database).
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Ashish Kanoongo" <ashishk@.armour.com> wrote in message news:e8c%23paoYEHA.3988@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I created, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database file name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file name as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows database na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the logic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004

Diff between xxx_data.mdf and xxx.mdf files

What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I create
d, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database fi
le name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file n
ame as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows da
tabase na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the log
ic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004There is no special significance to the suffixes _data and _log. They are
just the naming conventions used when the database was created. You can name
database files as anything you like, however the standard extensions for SQL
Server files are .MDF for data files and .LDF for log files.
MDB is the standard name for Access databases and isn't normally used for
SQL Server files.
(I've ignored your irrelevant cross-postings. Please don't cross-post. This
clearly has nothing to do with DTS, Clients or Connections so why post
there?)
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||I don't think there is any specific logic behind the file names really, it's
just what the naming convention was at the time the databases were created.
The actual database name is independent of the file name (and a database ca
n consist of multiple files anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to name t
he files after the database).
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Ashish Kanoongo" <ashishk@.armour.com> wrote in message news:e8c%23paoYEHA.3
988@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
What is difference between "xxx_data.mdf" and "xxxx.mdf"? IN Sql2k, I create
d, attach and detach database manytimes. SOme time its shows the database fi
le name as "xxx_data.mdb and xxx_log.mdb" and sometimes it only shows file n
ame as "xxx.mdf and xxx.ldf", why? However in Enterprise manager it shows da
tabase na as "xxx".
I just want to know difference these file name conventions, what was the log
ic behind this?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.715 / Virus Database: 471 - Release Date: 07/04/2004

Diaster Recovery - Different Build Numbers

I have to test for a diaster recovery plan (in case the
building burned down) We do a full backup of the data
files on our SQL Server 2000 nightly. (Using Veritas with
SQL client) My job is to build a new server and restore
the databases. All is find until I try to restore the
master. Then I get the error that the build numbers are
different. I have applied all the service packs and
patches that I believe to be on the original box, but
cannot get the build numbers to match. Does MS list what
patches or updates are in which build numbers?
ThanksChris,
See if this helps
SQLSecurity Checklist
http://www.sqlsecurity.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=4
--
Dinesh.
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Chris" <chris.mcbirney@.go.doe.gov> wrote in message
news:581b01c376ff$9a59f2b0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have to test for a diaster recovery plan (in case the
> building burned down) We do a full backup of the data
> files on our SQL Server 2000 nightly. (Using Veritas with
> SQL client) My job is to build a new server and restore
> the databases. All is find until I try to restore the
> master. Then I get the error that the build numbers are
> different. I have applied all the service packs and
> patches that I believe to be on the original box, but
> cannot get the build numbers to match. Does MS list what
> patches or updates are in which build numbers?
> Thanks

diacritics_sensitive tag (thesaurus files)

Quick question. The diacritics_sensitive tag of the thesaurus XML files,
should it be:
#1) <diacritics_sensitive>0</diacritics_sensitive>
Or:
#2) <diacritics = false/>
Or:
#3) <diacritics_sensitive = false/>
Or what? The thesaurus files that installed by default with SQL Server 2005
here are using format #1 above. I see format #2 documented on the MS
website, and #3 looks like it could be a possibility as well. I'm also
concerned that #2 and #3 are not valid XML, but that's what appears to be
documented here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345186.aspx.
Is it possible that all of the formats are actually valid? Or what?
Thanks
I am unable to get any version of the diactrics tag or the thesaurus file
working in SQL Server 2005 post SP2.
"Mike C#" <xyz@.xyz.com> wrote in message
news:eDn4pTanHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Quick question. The diacritics_sensitive tag of the thesaurus XML files,
> should it be:
> #1) <diacritics_sensitive>0</diacritics_sensitive>
> Or:
> #2) <diacritics = false/>
> Or:
> #3) <diacritics_sensitive = false/>
> Or what? The thesaurus files that installed by default with SQL Server
> 2005 here are using format #1 above. I see format #2 documented on the MS
> website, and #3 looks like it could be a possibility as well. I'm also
> concerned that #2 and #3 are not valid XML, but that's what appears to be
> documented here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345186.aspx.
> Is it possible that all of the formats are actually valid? Or what?
> Thanks
>
>
>
|||"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo4MVainHHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I am unable to get any version of the diactrics tag or the thesaurus file
>working in SQL Server 2005 post SP2.
Whoa that's weird. I had an issue with editing the thesaurus file in an
older version of TextPad. It wasn't saving the BOM with the file when I
saved in Unicode format. I was able to get it working when I saved the file
with NotePad.

Developer Edition - XP Home - SSIS Import/Export?

Hi,
I have a PC with XP home installed and want to use SSIS to import text
files to the SQL 2005 at my webhost, can the developer edition of SQL
2005 install SSIS Integration services to do the import?, or will that
checkbox be greyed out when installing?Hi
Integration services is installable with developer edition, therefore it is
not the SQL Server version that is stopping this being installed. Integration
Services is not available with SQL Express. You may want to try adding it
from the command prompt see
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144259.aspx#installationscripts
and use SQL_DTS for the component.
John
"BradMcA" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a PC with XP home installed and want to use SSIS to import text
> files to the SQL 2005 at my webhost, can the developer edition of SQL
> 2005 install SSIS Integration services to do the import?, or will that
> checkbox be greyed out when installing?
>|||Hi,
Thanks for the reply, the problem is the OS not the version of SQL as I
see it, I know that the enterprise version wont work entirely with XP
home, I can install the client tools and get BIDS on the system, but
when running import/export wizard I get that the status of the install
isnt sufficient.. i.e. integration services wont work fully with xp
home.. im wondering if the outcome will be more successful if I install
just the developer version... will I get true full functionality.
John Bell wrote:
> Hi
> Integration services is installable with developer edition, therefore it is
> not the SQL Server version that is stopping this being installed. Integration
> Services is not available with SQL Express. You may want to try adding it
> from the command prompt see
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144259.aspx#installationscripts
> and use SQL_DTS for the component.
> John
>
> "BradMcA" wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a PC with XP home installed and want to use SSIS to import text
> > files to the SQL 2005 at my webhost, can the developer edition of SQL
> > 2005 install SSIS Integration services to do the import?, or will that
> > checkbox be greyed out when installing?
> >
> >|||Hi Brad
XP Home is not an OS I use, so I can't really say.
John
"Brad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for the reply, the problem is the OS not the version of SQL as I
> see it, I know that the enterprise version wont work entirely with XP
> home, I can install the client tools and get BIDS on the system, but
> when running import/export wizard I get that the status of the install
> isnt sufficient.. i.e. integration services wont work fully with xp
> home.. im wondering if the outcome will be more successful if I install
> just the developer version... will I get true full functionality.
>
> John Bell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Integration services is installable with developer edition, therefore it is
> > not the SQL Server version that is stopping this being installed. Integration
> > Services is not available with SQL Express. You may want to try adding it
> > from the command prompt see
> > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144259.aspx#installationscripts
> > and use SQL_DTS for the component.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > "BradMcA" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I have a PC with XP home installed and want to use SSIS to import text
> > > files to the SQL 2005 at my webhost, can the developer edition of SQL
> > > 2005 install SSIS Integration services to do the import?, or will that
> > > checkbox be greyed out when installing?
> > >
> > >
>

develop reports(public on report server 1.0) in vs2005 ?

as title,is anyway to translate two different format rdl files?
thx !

I'm not 100% sure I understand your question, but I think you are asking if you can create reports using Visual Studio 2005 that will run under SSRS 2000: Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

The answer to your question is "no". SSRS 2005 uses an updated RDL schema that 2000 doesn't understand. If you use VS 2005 to create a report, you use the updated schema, therefore 2000 won't work.

I've started a list of these questions / answers at the following location if you want to contribute and/or read:

http://blogs.msdn.com/bimusings/archive/2005/12/13/503110.aspx

|||

---

thank you.

But translate between two schema is possible ,right?

Hope some experient program such tool:).

thanks again and your blog.

|||

By the way,ask the other question.

I need develop rs2000's report.but after i install vs2005,i cant do it again in vs2003,something is broken and raise error.

can i develop rs2000's report with vs2005 installed environment? how?

thanks very much!

|||

A translation between the 2003/10 RDL namespace and the 2005/01 RDL namespace is done for instance automatically by loading a report in report designer and saving it. It is performed implicitly when uploading a report on a RS 2005 report server.

A translation from 2005/01 back to 2003/10 is doable (e.g. with a XSLT), but I'm not aware of any publicly available tool at this point. There are not many differences between the 2003/10 and the 2005/01 RDL schemas - you can look at the specs at: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/reporting/rdlspec.mspx

You can also download the XSDs at:
http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/reporting/2003/10/reportdefinition/reportdefinition.xsd

http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/reporting/2005/01/reportdefinition/ReportDefinition.xsd

-- Robert

Determining restore sequence

Hi,
I have a lot of files in a directory. Each one have exactly one SQL Backup
Set. There are full, differential and transaction-log backup files...
How can I know what files (diffs and tlogs) should be restored (and in what
order) considering a individual full backup file (to get a the most recent
state)?
I am trying to use DatabaseBackupLSN and LastLSN. And I am having special
problems with the transaction-log backups (where to restore or not after a
specific differential).
Can anyone help me?
Thanks,
Rafael PivatoThe easiest way is to go by the time/date stamp in the
file name, which you should be using. Or by the file
dates.
Now, you need a full, and then after that, you can do the
differential after the full, and the transaction logs
after that. Or the full and all the tran logs after that.
You should keep a document somewhere that details these
things.
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>
>I have a lot of files in a directory. Each one have
exactly one SQL Backup
>Set. There are full, differential and transaction-log
backup files...
>
>How can I know what files (diffs and tlogs) should be
restored (and in what
>order) considering a individual full backup file (to get
a the most recent
>state)?
>
>I am trying to use DatabaseBackupLSN and LastLSN. And I
am having special
>problems with the transaction-log backups (where to
restore or not after a
>specific differential).
>
>
>Can anyone help me?
>Thanks,
>Rafael Pivato
>
>
>.
>|||Hi,
Allways try to create transaction log backup file names
with the combination of TX_date_time.bak.
Thanks
Hari
"Allan Hirt" <allanh@.nospamavanade.com> wrote in message
news:02f201c3cc0e$650a5410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> The easiest way is to go by the time/date stamp in the
> file name, which you should be using. Or by the file
> dates.
> Now, you need a full, and then after that, you can do the
> differential after the full, and the transaction logs
> after that. Or the full and all the tran logs after that.
> You should keep a document somewhere that details these
> things.
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> >I have a lot of files in a directory. Each one have
> exactly one SQL Backup
> >Set. There are full, differential and transaction-log
> backup files...
> >
> >
> >
> >How can I know what files (diffs and tlogs) should be
> restored (and in what
> >order) considering a individual full backup file (to get
> a the most recent
> >state)?
> >
> >
> >
> >I am trying to use DatabaseBackupLSN and LastLSN. And I
> am having special
> >problems with the transaction-log backups (where to
> restore or not after a
> >specific differential).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Can anyone help me?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Rafael Pivato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Read the file names into a temp table, ordered by its last modify date/time.
Loop through the temp table to examine each file with 'RESTORE HEADERONLY.'
This will tell you, among other things, the backup type of the backup file
or whether it is even a backup file. Keep only the latest full database
backup file, toss away any differential backup files older than the lastest
full database backup, and toss away any tran log backup files older than the
latest differential backup or the latest full database backup if there is no
differential backup.
Construct the RESTORE script in the following order:
1. Construct the database RESTORE statement by running RESTORE FILELISTONLY.
2. Construct the differential RESTORE statement by running RESTORE
FILELISTONLY on the differential backup file.
3. Construct the log RESTORE statements by running RESTORE FILELISTONLY on
each of the log backup files in the chronological order.
--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"Rafael Pivato" <for@.get.it> wrote in message
news:%23Sm0yx%23yDHA.2116@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I have a lot of files in a directory. Each one have exactly one SQL Backup
> Set. There are full, differential and transaction-log backup files...
>
> How can I know what files (diffs and tlogs) should be restored (and in
what
> order) considering a individual full backup file (to get a the most recent
> state)?
>
> I am trying to use DatabaseBackupLSN and LastLSN. And I am having special
> problems with the transaction-log backups (where to restore or not after a
> specific differential).
>
>
> Can anyone help me?
> Thanks,
> Rafael Pivato
>
>