Does Sql Server 2005 Enterprise Edition Support Managed Code ?

Dear friends,

please help,

let me tell you what happens,

1) first i installed Sql Server 2005 Enterprise Edition, everything was working fine except i was not able to create managed objects from BI, like stored procedures, triggers, UDT, etc etc.

2) so i installed VS.net 2005 complete + Sql Server 2005 Express Edition

now i was able to create stored procedures, triggers, etc etc, i'm talking about the CLR objects, ok, i.e. the managed code, but........ i was only able to do this from Sql Server 2005 Express Edition.

whenever i try to create managed objects CLR like stored procedures and stuff from the Sql Server 2005 Enterprise edition it gives me the following error :

"The Sql Server supplied by these connection properties, does not support managed code, please choose a different server"

please help meeeee.. please please, tell me what's the problem ?

below i'm attaching a screenshot of the error....

first off, I ASSURE you SQL Server 2005 EE supports SQLCLR. http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx

secondly, sql server 2005 has CLR Integration turned off by default and if you were to attempt using a sql 2005 EE default install/instance you could still deploy the sqlclr routines, its just that upon attempting to use them you would receive the error "Execution of user code in the .NET Framework is disabled. Enable "clr enabled" configuration option."

I can only reason that you are in fact NOT connecting to a SQL Server 2005 instance from a Visual Studio 2005 database project.

|||

yes even i think i was using, sql server 2000 your right.

thanks for your kind help,

regards,

Gurjit Singh

sql

Does server linking work without Security Account Delegation?

Hi,
In short, the question is as follows:
Is there any way to make server linking working without Security Account
Delegation enabled if the target (linked) server is set to "Windows only"
authentication?
We've encountered the following problem:
There are two SQL 2000 servers: SERVER1 and SERVER2.
We want to be able to access data stored on SERVER2 from SERVER1.
Therefore we created on SERVER1 a linked server SERVER2 (sp_addlinkedserver
N'SERVER2', N'SQL Server').
If SERVER2 were set to "SQL Server and Windows" authentication we could
easily add a linked server login:
sp_addlinkedsrvlogin @.rmtsrvname = N'SERVER2', @.useself = 'FALSE',
@.locallogin = <some local login>,
@.rmtuser = <SERVER2_SQLLogin>, @.rmtpassword = <password>
However, SERVER2 is set to "Windows only" authentication and we cannot
change it.
How can we establish a link?
Many thanks for any help.
Best regards,
Andrewif the NT logins have access to both servers then you can
use following to give them access to the linked server:
exec sp_addlinkedserver N'SERVER2' , '', @.provider =N'SQLOLEDB' , @.datasrc = N'SERVER2'
EXEC sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'SERVER2', 'true'
This will use user's current login credentials to access
the linked server.
HTH
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>In short, the question is as follows:
>Is there any way to make server linking working without
Security Account
>Delegation enabled if the target (linked) server is set
to "Windows only"
>authentication?
>
>We've encountered the following problem:
>There are two SQL 2000 servers: SERVER1 and SERVER2.
>We want to be able to access data stored on SERVER2 from
SERVER1.
>Therefore we created on SERVER1 a linked server SERVER2
(sp_addlinkedserver
>N'SERVER2', N'SQL Server').
>If SERVER2 were set to "SQL Server and Windows"
authentication we could
>easily add a linked server login:
>sp_addlinkedsrvlogin @.rmtsrvname = N'SERVER2',
@.useself = 'FALSE',
>@.locallogin = <some local login>,
> @.rmtuser = <SERVER2_SQLLogin>, @.rmtpassword =<password>
>However, SERVER2 is set to "Windows only" authentication
and we cannot
>change it.
>How can we establish a link?
>Many thanks for any help.
>Best regards,
>Andrew
>
>.
>sql

Does report support this parameters: ...&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&ChainID:isN

hi,
I am working on some report page which will be access via URL.
And I found some old reports URL look like this:
...&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&UserID:isNull=True...
What does the UserID:IsNull=True means? Is this right format for
SSRS2005?
ThanksIt means you have a parameter defined for your report called UserID and
you're setting its value to null via the URL.
Andy Potter|||Oh, ic, Thanks

Does report support this parameters: ...&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&Chain

hi,
I am working on some report page which will be access via URL.
And I found some old reports URL look like this:
....&rs:Format=HTML4.0&rc:Parameters=false&UserID:isNull=True....

What does the UserID:IsNull=True means? Is this right format for SSRS2005?

Thanks

The UserID:IsNull=True notation is special syntax that allows you to pass null values as report parameters. In this case, you're passing null to the UserID parameter. For more info, see Books Online here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms155391.aspx

Here's all the info about URL access with Reporting Services:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms153586(en-us,SQL.90).aspx

Best,
Chris

Does dynamic SQL allow table variables?

Hello!
Please see below the test code that is using dynamic sql and table
variable. It is not working. I am not sure if the dynamic SQL allows
using table variables?
Thanks!
declare @.Tblvar TABLE(a int, b varchar(10))
declare @.s varchar(200)
create table #Dept(a int, b varchar(10))
insert into #Dept values(1, 'abcd')
insert into #Dept values(2, 'xyz')
set @.s = 'insert into ' + @.Tblvar
' select * from #Dept'
exec (@.s)
select * from @.Tblvar
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***The problem is that you didn't create the #Dept table in the same scope.
Inside the EXEC() there is no #Dept table.
"Test Test" <farooqhs_2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23A2JudbLGHA.2276@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> Please see below the test code that is using dynamic sql and table
> variable. It is not working. I am not sure if the dynamic SQL allows
> using table variables?
> Thanks!
> declare @.Tblvar TABLE(a int, b varchar(10))
> declare @.s varchar(200)
> create table #Dept(a int, b varchar(10))
> insert into #Dept values(1, 'abcd')
> insert into #Dept values(2, 'xyz')
> set @.s = 'insert into ' + @.Tblvar
> ' select * from #Dept'
> exec (@.s)
> select * from @.Tblvar
>
>
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***|||As Aaron says..this is a scope problem...table variables must be used
in the same batch...
exec('declare @.Tblvar TABLE(a int, b varchar(10))
declare @.s varchar(200)
create table #Dept(a int, b varchar(10))
insert into #Dept values(1, ''abcd'')
insert into #Dept values(2, ''xyz'')
insert into @.Tblvar
select * from #Dept
select * from @.Tblvar')
MJKulangara
http://sqladventures.blogspot.com|||I see two problems here. First, you are trying to build your query string,
@.s, by concatenating a string with a table, which won't work. You could
instead to
set @.s = 'insert into @.Tblvar select * from #Dept'
but then you encounter another problem: neither the variable @.Tblvar or the
temporary table #Dept is defined in the scope that the query is executed
under with EXEC.
"Test Test" wrote:

> Hello!
> Please see below the test code that is using dynamic sql and table
> variable. It is not working. I am not sure if the dynamic SQL allows
> using table variables?
> Thanks!
> declare @.Tblvar TABLE(a int, b varchar(10))
> declare @.s varchar(200)
> create table #Dept(a int, b varchar(10))
> insert into #Dept values(1, 'abcd')
> insert into #Dept values(2, 'xyz')
> set @.s = 'insert into ' + @.Tblvar
> ' select * from #Dept'
> exec (@.s)
> select * from @.Tblvar
>
>
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
>|||Yes it does, but due to the fact that exec is opening another session
)verything you execute) it has to be put within the context of the (in
your case) INSERT INTO statement. Otherwise you can use a global
temporary data to share data with if you want to.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer..|||Test Test (farooqhs_2000@.yahoo.com) writes:
> Please see below the test code that is using dynamic sql and table
> variable. It is not working. I am not sure if the dynamic SQL allows
> using table variables?
> Thanks!
> declare @.Tblvar TABLE(a int, b varchar(10))
> declare @.s varchar(200)
> create table #Dept(a int, b varchar(10))
> insert into #Dept values(1, 'abcd')
> insert into #Dept values(2, 'xyz')
> set @.s = 'insert into ' + @.Tblvar
> ' select * from #Dept'
> exec (@.s)
> select * from @.Tblvar
The dynamic SQL constitutes a scope on its own, and variables are
only visible in the direct scope that created it. This is in difference
to temp tables which are visible for inner scopes. (No less than two
posters gave incorrect information on this.)
A scope is a stored procedure, function, trigger - or a batch of dynamic
SQL.
A good demonstration of this is:
CREATE PROCEDURE nestlevel_sp AS
SELECT @.@.nestlevel
EXEC('SELECT @.@.nestlevel')
EXEC sp_executesql N'SELECT @.@.nestlevel'
go
EXEC nestlevel_sp
This prints 1, 2 3 in that order.
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|||Thanks to everyone!!!
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***

Does bit data type function as boolean?

Hi,

I have some applications working fine with Sql Server 7 and Jet 4.
I'm doing some tests with Sql Server 2000 to port these applications to it. I'm having some troubles to query tables using a bit field. For example:

These query worked fine in Sql Server 7:

"Select <fields> from <table> where <boolean/bit field>"

Now I have to do this way:

"Select <fields> from <table> where <bit field> = 1"

Why does this happen? Sql Server 2000 doesn't recognize a boolean value anymore? It's easier and more comprehensive (to me) to use the first way.

Does anyone know why this is happening? Does Sql Server work different than older versions?

Thanks!

Fabianohttp://dbforums.com/arch/43/2002/4/343538

Originally posted by fabiano
Hi,

I have some applications working fine with Sql Server 7 and Jet 4.
I'm doing some tests with Sql Server 2000 to port these applications to it. I'm having some troubles to query tables using a bit field. For example:

These query worked fine in Sql Server 7:

"Select <fields> from <table> where <boolean/bit field>"

Now I have to do this way:

"Select <fields> from <table> where <bit field> = 1"

Why does this happen? Sql Server 2000 doesn't recognize a boolean value anymore? It's easier and more comprehensive (to me) to use the first way.

Does anyone know why this is happening? Does Sql Server work different than older versions?

Thanks!

Fabiano|||nice thread, sbaru

especially joe celko's advice not to use BIT

did you notice that no one actually answered the question "...so the correct, non-proprietary datatype for representing a boolean value is...?"

fabiano, your question "Sql Server 2000 doesn't recognize a boolean value anymore?" is not quite accurate -- i don't think it ever did

if you can change the datatype, you might consider a numeric field like TINYINT or INTEGER instead of BIT

see also Booleans in SQL Server (http://searchdatabase.techtarget.com/ateQuestionNResponse/0,289625,sid13_cid556536_tax285649,00.html)

rudy|||Thanks Rudy and Sbaru,

I've been advised to use tinyint (or some integer variant) to do it. I have some doubts about use tinyint instead of bit to represent a boolean type as follows:

1. Didn't bit type created to represent boolean values? Why does it exist? It what kind of situation am I going to use it?

2. Is bit an optimized type to work with?

3. I know it doesn't make sense to summarize or group by a bit field but it's very common to use this type of field to count records in a table or query by it.

Ex:
Employees that have dependents:

"Select Cod_emp from Employees Where Dep_emp"

Count the number of these employees:

"Select Count(Cod_emp) from Employees Where Dep_emp"

These queries above are common in some situations.

Note that I don't need to explicit "Dep_emp = 1" Or "Dep_emp = 0", it's just "Dep_emp". The query is clearer to read.

I have many queries this way. If I change the bit types to tinyint will they work fine or I will have to change the structure of all my queries?

Thanks for your time!

Fabiano|||1) no, BIT was created to store bits

2) depends what you mean by "optimized"

3) "Note that I don't need to explicit "Dep_emp = 1" Or "Dep_emp = 0", it's just "Dep_emp". The query is clearer to read."

whether it is clearer to read is a matter of opinion

"Dep_emp" by itself means nothing to me

"Dep_emp = 1" means nothing to me either

if the purpose of the Dep_emp column is to indicate whether the employee belongs to the department, then i suggest that it is not at all clear, and in fact is poor design

but yes, you are going to have to change the structure of all your queries

rudy|||It doesn't work that way..

USE Northwind
GO

CREATE TABLE myTable99 (col1 bit)
GO

INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1) SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 0
GO

--Doesn't work
SELECT * FROM myTable99 WHERE Col1 TRUE
--Works
SELECT * FROM myTable99 WHERE Col1 = 1
GO

DROP TABLE myTable99
GO

And what is dep_emp...it must be predefined somewhere..

Also it sounds like all of your SQL code is in the app...now would be a good time to turn them in to stored procedures|||I understood. I'm going to change some queries in my applications.

I've already have most of my queries in stored procedures and views, and these queries use boolean fields in criteria search the way I've described.

Returning to those doubts I've mentioned:

1) Yes. Bit fields were created to store bits. But bit value seems to use in boolean cases. When do I need to store pure bits? If the type was byte instead of bit it would make sense, but bit? Bit value accepts only 0 or 1, True or False, Yes or No or some variance of it. That's why I've thought in use it to store this type of value. But it's ok! I've understood that it won't work this way.

2) When I've mentioned "optimized" I wanted to know if Sql Server treat this type of field in a different way. Do you know if it proceeds?

3) The field "Dep_emp" was not the better example. Think in a gender field to store "male" or "female" where "true" could be "female" and so on. In this case a query like "Select Name_cus from Customers Where Gen_cus" would return just the females ones in a case of a promotion for the female customers for example. In this case, untill now, I didn't have to explicit "Where Gen_cus = 1". I've been used just "Where Gen_cus" that it seems to be clearer once you think in "boolean way".

My doubt is why did MS change the way of treatment of bit fields in Sql Server 2000? Any other DBMS or older versions of Sql Server recognizes the ANSI-SQL "Where <boolean field>" without the need of explicit the true or false value. Once it's a boolean field it doesn't make sense to explicit the value, right? It's true or false, nothing more. I thought this type of field was created to treat these situations in a "optimized" way, even just to clear the queries.

This way of treatment of boolean values helps us even more than this. In a table that stores the quantity of dependents of a employee (like children, parents, ...) you will be able to query for employees that have dependents just using the boolean way, for example:

"Select Cod_emp from Employess Where Dependents_emp"

Or

"Select Cod_emp from Employees Where Not Dependents_emp"

Note that I don't need to explicit "Where Dependents_emp > 0" or "Where Dependents_emp = 0". I don't need, in this case, to know how many dependents each employee has, just to know who they are. There're many reasons for this kind of query. This way of query worked not just in bit fields but in all numeric fields. Any value different than 0 was treated as true.

The biggest problem is that I'll need to separate my apps in 2 versions. One for any DBMS and one just for Sql Server 2000. I'm not worried about the performance using a "native" Sql of each DBMS. I'm worried about the portability of my apps to any DBMS, that's why I often use ANSI-SQL, even because the performance boost is not too sensitive.

Thanks again!

Fabiano|||i could be wrong, but i don't think sql server has ever supported boolean

it goes against everything we've come to expect from microsoft, that they would have a standard feature in an early database and then stop supporting it -- that just doesn't make sense

as far as your rather creative way of using an integer such as number of dependents in a WHERE clause as a boolean...

"Any value different than 0 was treated as true" ?

that may be the way it works in mysql, but it certainly is not standard behaviour, as far as i know, and all i can say is, i hope i never have to support one of your apps, because that is certainly counter-intuitive

at least, to me ;)|||Hi Rudy,

Please forgive me if it seemed that I've been rude or arrogant. Believe, I was not intended to. My english is very poor and I don't know how to expressing my words very well. I've been just "translating" my "portuguese thoughts" in "english words" and I suppose you got me wrong.

It seems to me that you got angry about anything I've said in your words:

"...whether it is clearer to read is a matter of opinion
Dep_emp by itself means nothing to me
Dep_emp = 1 means nothing to me either..."

That's not possible that you couldn't see the mean of these codes. It's very clear. You don't need to know the total structure of the project to suppose that it's a query that brings rows where "Dep_emp" is "true". Just it!

--

"...and in fact is poor design."

How can you say something like that without the knowledge enough about the project?

--

"i could be wrong, but i don't think sql server has ever supported boolean..."

Yes. You're wrong. The bit field was treated as boolean untill Sql Server 7. My apps stopped to work only when I upgraded to Sql Sever 2000.

--

"as far as your rather creative way of using an integer such as number of dependents in a WHERE clause as a boolean..."

The more experience more creativity, indeed.

--

"Any value different than 0 was treated as true ?
that may be the way it works in mysql, but it certainly is not standard behaviour, as far as i know..."

I think you don't have a basic knowledge about another RDBMS than Sql Server 2000. This behavior has been standard at least in Jet, Sql Server (untill 7), MySql and Postgre SQL. I'm working with all these ones and I can say that they work fine.

--

"...i hope i never have to support one of your apps, because that is certainly counter-intuitive."

Yes. You're totally right. My apps need more "creativity" and I think you've not got it enough.

--

Please take a good look at the links below (they're all from Microsoft as you can see):

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;129803
"0=False, non-zero=True"

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vblr7/html/vadatBoolean.asp
"When numeric data types are converted to Boolean values, 0 becomes False and all other values become True."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/acdata/ac_8_con_03_7uzy.asp
"Converting to bit promotes any nonzero value to 1."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_ba-bz_2it0.asp
"Microsoft SQL Server optimizes the storage used for bit columns."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/oledbsql/9_ole_13_7s6r.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/oledbsql/9_ole_13_10ha.asp
*Sqloledb mapps bit data type to boolean data type according to the table shown.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/maintain/trans/ch20.asp
"Efficient datatypes

...Narrow columns make narrow tables, and narrow tables allow you to store more rows on a single data page...

...If your table contains a series of flags with Yes/No or False/True type of information, the best datatype for such columns is BIT. This type is especially effective when you have several columns of type BIT in a table..."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vbls7/html/vblrfvbspec10_2a.asp
"...A zero numeric value converts to the literal False. All other numeric values convert to the literal True."

--

You can see that I've followed the MS' suggestions. That's why my disappointment with the change of treatment of the bit type.

I'm not saying Sql Server is a bad RDBMS. I use it for a long time and I like its performance and stability. I often suggest it for my customers. Then you don't need to get personally offended. It was not intension. Sorry Rudy.

Fabiano
IT Solution Engineer|||fabiano, i was not angry, and i am not angry now

i've been working with databases since the mid '70s, and i do have plenty of experience with them

what is "creative" to you may not seem so to someone else

you are entitled to your opinion, and i am entitled to mine, which i have arrived at after working with many different databases for many decades

i have plenty of creativity, my friend

good luck to you sir

rudy

p.s. you say sql server 7 "treated" BIT as BOOLEAN, but that's not the same thing as supporting BOOLEAN|||Come on Rudy, admit it! Everything you know you learned by scanning the back cover of "Databases For Dummies" at Barne's And Noble!

It's time to face the music!

:p|||sheeeeeesh

flame wars...

Why are people soooooooo sensitive...

Is it the ability to lash out in anonymity ?

And fabiano...chill

Please forgive me if it seemed that I've been rude or arrogant. Believe, I was not intended to. My english is very poor and I don't know how to expressing my words very well. I've been just "translating" my "portuguese thoughts" in "english words" and I suppose you got me wrong.

That translating part I find goes both ways...with the expression, and the interpretation...

Take everything with a grain of salt...nobody at the sites (well with the exception of a few) are not here, not to help...

Now back to the thing...

Where is your code stored? In an Access front end? VB? Stored procedures?

And Can you post the DDL and or code so we can have a look?

Maybe only a Blindman (get the pun) can interpret something we haven't seen.

I'm very curious as to what you have there (It's the only way we learn too)

Thanks|||How I was asking for help (I know nobody here is obligated to, it's just a forum) and it seemed Rudy didn't like my insistence in some points. I was testing nobody, just debating to see if I could do something not to need changing my whole code.

I have some codes in sp, views, using the execute method of ado in vb and some dlls in mts. The job will be enormous considering all projects and tecnologies involved with.

I think I don't need to post any part of the code. The doubt is simple. Once it doesn't matter if I'm querying from a sp, an execute method or view, Sql Server will be always the "interpreter". If the query was "Select <something> from <some table> Where <some field>", it would be interpreted the same way, independently the method used.

I know "treat by" and "supporting" are different things, but the mean of it is the same. If I can have a condition search like "Where <bField>" and the RDBMS returns the records means that it treated the content of that field as boolean, even the RDBMS doesn't support boolean types (and that's it what have been done by earlier versions of Sql Server).

I don't have all of that experience because I began to work with projects design at the mid' 80s (10 years latter). Even so I think the time is not the only manner to measure the ability of a professional. There're plenty of professionals that don't worry about their evolution.

But it's ok. I've interpreted wrong all of those words I'm sure. Forgive me.

About the anonymity I think there's something wrong. Fabiano is my true name. Brasil, Gois, Goinia is my true physical location. If the problem is a telephone number here it goes: +55 (62) 259-7567 (Commercial. I'll be there from January, 5). I don't speak english very well (as you can see) but if we have patience I guess we can understand each other.

Fabiano
Entitled to my opinion: IT Solution Engineer|||fabiano, your english is fine, that was never the problem, in fact, your english is way better than my portuguese

;)

i understand your frustration, and all i can say is, you have learned a valuable lesson about creativity versus flexibility and maintainability

i practice what i call "defensive sql" and WHERE BITFIELD by itself is not very defensive, as you have found out

good luck with your upgrade

rudy|||Rudy,

You don't need to know portuguese once I came for help in a foreign forum (for me ;)). It's my obligation to know how to express my doubts, I know.

With the improvement of my english I can see clearly now. It was not your (or Brett's) fault, sorry. It was seemed to me that you've been ironic in your answers, but was not.

I respect your knowledge. Unfortunatelly the earlier versions of Sql Server did work the way I told, but it's not the problem. That sintax I've demonstrated is ANSI-SQL and not a "native" one.

I've been using ANSI-SQL thinking the same way of yours "defensive sql". To have not problems at all (unless the performance was critical, although it would be the last thing I was change).

I think that I'll need to call for mommy... :)

Fabiano|||I like Rudy's concept of "defensive SQL". Its certainly possible to be so creative in a search for the elegant solution that it becomes difficult for even experience SQL programmers to decipher your logic later on. What I refuse to do, though, is to dumb down my code so that it is readable by any VB developer that comes along. Efficiency and functionality are still of higher importance.

At least thats what I read in "SQL For Idiots".

blindman :cool:|||Fabiano,

Where's Goias?

Getting ready for New Years eve?

And is that really an ANSI Compliant SQL?

Anyone got a link to them?

Still dusting off my 6.5 book to take a look see...|||Originally posted by fabiano
That sintax I've demonstrated is ANSI-SQL and not a "native" one.i don't know if your syntax actually was ANSI

i think ANSI syntax requires you to say WHERE BOOLFIELD IS TRUE or WHERE BOOLFIELD IS FALSE

you left off the IS TRUE part ;)

(i could be wrong -- i don't have an intimate knowledge of the ANSI standard, and the Mimer SQL Validator (http://developer.mimer.se/validator/index.htm) appears to be down at the moment)

in any case, i do not see the value in using ANSI sql intended for one data type (BOOLEAN) on a different datatype (BIT)

i.e. WHERE BITFIELD IS TRUE wouldn't have worked with sql server 7 BIT fields anyway, right?

rudy|||Hey...pretty exotic...

http://www.brazil.travelmall.com/travelmall/region/Brasillia+and+Goias

Got any 6 month consulting gigs opening up?

Sounds like you'll need a hand or two...|||Hmmm. This is from that link:

Here are some points that will make your trip more pleasant:
1) Take good care in your personal hygiene and dress to avoid ridicule and to fit in with the locals.

Never been to good with that "dress to avoid ridicule" thing... ;-)|||I liked this one

Generally be wary of what you do to avoid offending or causing trouble.|||Hmm. They must have a big sign out front that says "No Americans allowed".|||HEY!

I resemble that remark!|||http://docs.zf.jcu.cz/sql1992.txt

"8.12 <search condition>
...
Format

<boolean test> ::= <boolean primary> [ IS [ NOT ] <truth value> ] "

* it seems to be optional to specify the truth value.

"...

Leveling Rules
1) The following restrictions apply for Intermediate SQL:
a) A <boolean test> shall not specify a <truth value>."

* here's a recommendation.

"...
24)Subclause 8.12, "<search condition>":
a) A <boolean test> shall not specify a <truth value>."

* that's the recommendation again.

"...
12.4 Calls to a <procedure>
...
TYPE;
type BIT is array (NATURAL range <>) of BOOLEAN;"

* here's saying that each bit is a boolean value.

----

This doc reproduces the entire content of ANSI-SQL-92 Standard.
How my english is not at all good, I've transported a part of the doc above to be interpreted.

What it seems to be clear is that BIT and BOOLEAN are synonymous.
This way Sql Server 7 seems to be ANSI-SQL-92 Compliant and Sql Server 2000 is not. I say that because Sql Server 7 works fine with my code, no problems.

For example. If you have a table like this:

Cus_id as Integer, Cus_Name as Varchar(50), Cus_gen as Bit

*Cus_gen: (0) male, (1) female

With some records like these:

1, Rudy, 0
2, Fabiano, 0
3, MCrowley (Ozzy Osbourne), 0
4, Brett Kaiser, 0
5, Suzy, 1

You can query females this way (Sql Server 7):

Select Cus_name Where Cus_gen

But using Sql Server 2000 you'll need to do this way:

Select Cus_name Where Cus_gen = 1

Once the value of "Cus_gen" is a boolean (or bit) you don't need to specify the boolean value, it doesn't make sense, it's true or false, nothing more.

For example, in VB (or any language) to do a loop through the records of a table you do something like that:

<open your recordset>

While Not adoRS.Eof

<do something>
adoRS.MoveNext

Wend

I do not need to specify:

While Not adoRS.Eof = True
or
While adoRS.Eof = False

Or a condition to verify whether a number is odd or even:

If X Mod 2 then
<even>
Else
<odd>
End If

I don't need to do:

If X Mod 2 <> 0 then

And so on. I've been used thus. This way we save a processor time taking out the need of the comparison "<> 0" or "=True" and, at the same time, you let your app smaller.

I don't remeber where I've read about these tips. I'll look for it later. I remember just something about "how you optimize your code" or something like that. I guess was at MS.com, don't remember.

In many cases the bandwidth of 100 Mbits of a huge LAN is not enough to provide a good performance, than we have to use the creativity to improve it. Worse when you working on an eCommerce. I use the standards to develop but I try to maintain my apps the minimun code as possible.

I'm not trying to explain my point of view. I'm trying to know if the way I work is actually a good way or if there's better ways to do it.

Thanks!

Fabiano|||congratulations on digging up the 1992 standard

again, all i can say is, too bad you have to rewrite all your code

want to know how i design male/female columns?

instead of

... Where Cus_gen

i prefer

... Where Cus_gen = 'F'

but that's just me, eh

rudy|||My e-mail is: fabianomaiafranco@.hotmail.com (it's my messenger passport too).

Thanks!!!

Fabiano
The Pretentious ;)

does anyone know how to run a batch file using vb script?

This is not working.

Set oShell = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
oShell.Exec "test.bat"

Try the "call" command. it works in similar scenarios. I have not tested it in vb script from SSIS but it should work just fine.

Here is the modified command:

Set oShell = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
oShell.Exec "call test.bat"

Thanks,
Greg Van Mullem|||That doesn't seem to work. The error is can't find specified file.|||

Try Run instead of Exec.

Set oShell = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
oShell.Run "test.bat"

|||call shell(c:\test.bat)

Does anyone have an ForEachColumn Procedure?

Hi

Does anyone have an ForEachColumn Procedure?
(a bit like the MSforeachdb and MSforeachtable sps)

This should be quite generic for anyone working with real life data coming in from other systems.

I need to fill out the rows with missing values in historic records from the previous current record.
(sometimes even from a previous historic record)
And sometimes the current record doesn't have data in the field, so I shouldn't get the data from current -1.

Can solve most of the complexities of the filling out part.

But it needs to be applied for (most of) my 57 columns,and then there is even some differently formatted data just beyond the horizon, so maybe I should try to get a more generic applicable solution.

Did anyone try a ForEachColumnExcept procedure

CREATE PROCEDURE ForEachColumnExcept
@.TableName varchar(200)
, @.ExceptionList varchar(8000) = '' -- the few ones to exclude
, @.DelimterInExceptionlist varchar(10) = ','
AS
...
END

the difficulty here is getting the columns from the databse's data-dictionary
)haven't done that before, but I think I'll find that out.

Or even:

CREATE PROCEDURE ForEachColumnInList
@.TableName varchar(200)
, @.ColumnList varchar(8000) -- all the ones to include
, @.DelimterInColumnList varchar(10) = ','
AS
...
END

Cheers

Drionot sure what u finally want to do with the column list, this will however generate a column list & data type based on params u declared

set @.ExceptionList = ','+ @.ExceptionList + ','
select Column_name,Data_Type from information_schema.columns
where table_name=@.TableName and column_name not in (case when charindex(','+column_name+',',@.ExceptionList) > 0 then column_name else '' end)

Documenting a Database

Hi,
I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities and
procedures using some tools or etc.
Thanks in advance,
Leila
Hi
With the Enterprise Edition of Visio you can produce reports and diagrams
for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
John
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
> documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
> How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities
> and
> procedures using some tools or etc.
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
|||I can't pass this one up. How did you design a database without
documentation? Oh, nevermind!!!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uDoASTE7EHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> With the Enterprise Edition of Visio you can produce reports and diagrams
> for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
> You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
> http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
> John
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>

Documenting a Database

Hi,
I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities and
procedures using some tools or etc.
Thanks in advance,
LeilaHi
With the Enterprise Edition of Visio you can produce reports and diagrams
for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
John
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
> documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
> How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities
> and
> procedures using some tools or etc.
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||I can't pass this one up. :) How did you design a database without
documentation? Oh, nevermind!!!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uDoASTE7EHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> With the Enterprise Edition of Visio you can produce reports and diagrams
> for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
> You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
> http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
> John
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> > I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
> > documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
> > How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities
> > and
> > procedures using some tools or etc.
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Leila
> >
> >
>
>

Documenting a Database

Hi,
I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities and
procedures using some tools or etc.
Thanks in advance,
LeilaHi
With the Enterprise Edition of visio you can produce reports and diagrams
for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
John
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have designed and developed a database. Now I want to prepare some
> documentation so that other developers can continue working on that.
> How can I do this? Are there any standard ways to describe the entities
> and
> procedures using some tools or etc.
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||I can't pass this one up. How did you design a database without
documentation? Oh, nevermind!!!
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uDoASTE7EHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> With the Enterprise Edition of visio you can produce reports and diagrams
> for your database, other modeling tools will provide similar functions.
> You can also add extended properties to document your database such as
> http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2244
> John
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%23527A5D7EHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>