Showing posts with label order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label order. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having Trouble Installing Reporting Services

i am having some trouble installing SQl server Reporting Services.
well, in order to install the reporting services i have to install
Service
Pack 3a.
so through my installation of package 3a i am encoutering some trouble.
i was able to comlete the first part of the installation i receive

this error message: Instance name specified is invalid

so, my question is: once you have SQL Server installed, where can you
go to find the name of the instance
and once i find it, can i rename it?
i originally installed SQL Server a while ago. during the setup, i do
not recall a particular name i might have given it.<ajackson@.icstars.org> wrote in message
news:1111796152.315471.297270@.o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>i am having some trouble installing SQl server Reporting Services.
> well, in order to install the reporting services i have to install
> Service
> Pack 3a.
> so through my installation of package 3a i am encoutering some trouble.
> i was able to comlete the first part of the installation i receive
> this error message: Instance name specified is invalid
> so, my question is: once you have SQL Server installed, where can you
> go to find the name of the instance
> and once i find it, can i rename it?
> i originally installed SQL Server a while ago. during the setup, i do
> not recall a particular name i might have given it.

See questions 12, 13 and 28. You can't rename an instance - you have to
install another one with the correct name, move your databases to it, and
then remove the original one.

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...6&Product=sql2k

Simon

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

hash table (#) order by problem with more records

We have one single hash (#) table, in which we insert data processing
priority wise (after calculating priority).
for. e.g.

Company Product Priority Prod. QtyProd_Plan_Date
C1 P11100
C1 P22 50
C1 P33 30
C2 P11200
C2 P42 40
C2 P53 10

There is a problem when accessing data for usage priority wise.
Problem is as follows:

We want to plan production date as per group (company) sorted order and
priority wise.

==>With less data, it works fine.
==>But when there are more records for e.g. 100000 or more , it changes
the logical order of data

So plan date calculation gets effected.

==Although I have solved this problem with putting identity column and
checking in where condition.

But, I want to know why this problem is coming.

If anybody have come across this similar problem, please let me know
the reason and your solution.

IS IT SQL SERVER PROBLEM?

Thanks & Regards,
T.S.Negi> when there are more records for e.g. 100000 or more , it changes
> the logical order of data

Are you referring to the perceived order in the table? Rows in tables
have NO logical order in a relational database. If you require a
particular order you have to query them using a SELECT statement with
an ORDER BY clause otherwise the ordering is undefined.

If that doesn't answer your question then please describe your problem
with DDL (including keys), sample data INSERT statements and show your
required end result.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||While inserting records in hash table. It is already order by on some
fields.
But when selecting/updating records, I want the same order of records
should be updated/selected.

"Rows in tables have NO logical order in a relational database"
I think, True for hash(#) and permanent table.

T.S.Negi

David Portas wrote:
> > when there are more records for e.g. 100000 or more , it changes
> > the logical order of data
> Are you referring to the perceived order in the table? Rows in tables
> have NO logical order in a relational database. If you require a
> particular order you have to query them using a SELECT statement with
> an ORDER BY clause otherwise the ordering is undefined.
> If that doesn't answer your question then please describe your
problem
> with DDL (including keys), sample data INSERT statements and show
your
> required end result.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --|||There is an update condition. Which I want to make sure, performing on
ordered data (order by used at the time of insert).
I want to avoide loop.

Reason: "Rows in tables have NO logical order in a relational database"
!!!!

So Please advice.
Thanks,
T.S.Negi

Sample SQL:
===========

UPDATE #WK_PDR_ProcessingData SET
@.Opn_Stock_Qty= CASE WHEN (
@.Customer_Cd = Customer_Cd
AND @.Product_No = Product_No
AND @.Product_Site_Cd = Product_Site_Cd
AND @.Assy_Company_Cd = Assy_Company_Cd
AND @.Assy_Section_Cd = Assy_Section_Cd
AND @.Line_Cd = Line_Cd
) THEN @.Opn_Stock_Qty + @.Production_Qty - @.Requirement_Qty
ELSE begin_Stock_Qty END,
Calc_Stock_Qty= @.Opn_Stock_Qty + Production_Qty - Requirement_Qty,
@.Customer_Cd = Customer_Cd,
@.Product_No = Product_No,
@.Product_Site_Cd= Product_Site_Cd,
@.Assy_Company_Cd= Assy_Company_Cd,
@.Assy_Section_Cd= Assy_Section_Cd,
@.Line_Cd = Line_Cd,
@.Production_Qty = Production_Qty,
@.Requirement_Qty= Requirement_Qty
FROM #WK_PDR_ProcessingData|||tilak.negi@.mind-infotech.com (tilak.negi@.mind-infotech.com) writes:
> While inserting records in hash table. It is already order by on some
> fields.

And once it is inserted, there is no longer any order.

> But when selecting/updating records, I want the same order of records
> should be updated/selected.
> "Rows in tables have NO logical order in a relational database"
> I think, True for hash(#) and permanent table.

Well, obviously you have some operation that does not give you the
desired result, and you posted an UPDATE statement, which is a little
funny, because all you do is to assign a variable.

I suggest that you follow the standard recommendation and post:

o CREATE TABLE statement for your table(s)
o INSERT statements with sample data.
o The desired result given the sample.
o A short narrative of what ou are trying to achieve.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||UPDATEs are not ordered either. The result of your UPDATE statement is
undefined, unreliable and, in my view, not useful.

Please specify the whole problem rather than post fragments of your
non-working solution. The best way to specify the problem is to post
DDL, sample data and required end results. See:
http://www.aspfaq.com/etiquette.asp?id=5006

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Monday, March 12, 2012

Hardware issues for database mirroring

Hi guys, can I know for mirroring, is it both principal and mirror server's hardware spec needed to be same in order to best performance during mirroring? I am just curious about it. Thx.

Best Regards,

Hans

NO, they don't have to be

Although you might want them to be, as the mirror server should be capable enough to be your primary server when needed

Plus, you can set them up identically, or try different settings to see how performance changes

It's likd RAID, you don't necessarily need same brand, same model, same size HDDs, but people always recommends it

|||Also, depending on the version of SQL2005, only the enterprise edition supports "high-performance" in asynchronous mode for mirroring. The standard edition only supports synchronous - so a gigabit or fibre channel is recommended. The speed between servers should also be considered for best mirroring performance, depending on your situation.