Is it possible to force users with sql accounts to use secure passwords say
6 plus characters long with numbers and letters. Is it also possible to have
sql insist that the passwords be changed every X days.
I am of course talking about when sql server 2000 uses sql authentication.
Please advise
AndreHi
SQL Server 2005 introduces this functionality.
Regards
--
Mike
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Andre Gibson" <AndreGibson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B9326C5-CF63-4609-A84D-4A596363A8EF@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to force users with sql accounts to use secure passwords
> say
> 6 plus characters long with numbers and letters. Is it also possible to
> have
> sql insist that the passwords be changed every X days.
> I am of course talking about when sql server 2000 uses sql authentication.
> Please advise
> Andre|||The short answer for SQL 2000 is No.
A much longer answer is that one could 'roll their own' and create some
overly complex custom functionality that most likely would still be
incomplete and fraught with problems.
Waiting for SQL 2005 -and lobbying for its' adoption, is the answer.
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another Certification Exam
"Andre Gibson" <AndreGibson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B9326C5-CF63-4609-A84D-4A596363A8EF@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to force users with sql accounts to use secure passwords
> say
> 6 plus characters long with numbers and letters. Is it also possible to
> have
> sql insist that the passwords be changed every X days.
> I am of course talking about when sql server 2000 uses sql authentication.
> Please advise
> Andre
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Inserts to tables as one or two users.
SQL 7.0 SP4
Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
either to one table or the other, but not both.
Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
the database as one or two SQL users?
1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
or
2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
user CAT inserts to table YYY?
Thanks for your help,
DonUnless you need to load them in parallel there isn't any reason to use two
users. Adding connections has a slight overhead that you probably don't
need for this type operation.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0bf401c38126$d4174120$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0 SP4
> Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
> massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
> either to one table or the other, but not both.
> Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
> the database as one or two SQL users?
> 1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
> or
> 2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
> user CAT inserts to table YYY?
> Thanks for your help,
> Don|||no, it wouldn't make any difference in performance, it
will only increase work for you to manage permissions to
two users.
Also, consider using stored procedures rather than direct
insert statements. this will give slight performance gain,
and better management of sql code.
>--Original Message--
>SQL 7.0 SP4
>Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
>massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
>either to one table or the other, but not both.
>Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
>the database as one or two SQL users?
>1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
>or
>2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
> user CAT inserts to table YYY?
>Thanks for your help,
>Don
>.
>
Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
either to one table or the other, but not both.
Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
the database as one or two SQL users?
1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
or
2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
user CAT inserts to table YYY?
Thanks for your help,
DonUnless you need to load them in parallel there isn't any reason to use two
users. Adding connections has a slight overhead that you probably don't
need for this type operation.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0bf401c38126$d4174120$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0 SP4
> Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
> massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
> either to one table or the other, but not both.
> Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
> the database as one or two SQL users?
> 1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
> or
> 2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
> user CAT inserts to table YYY?
> Thanks for your help,
> Don|||no, it wouldn't make any difference in performance, it
will only increase work for you to manage permissions to
two users.
Also, consider using stored procedures rather than direct
insert statements. this will give slight performance gain,
and better management of sql code.
>--Original Message--
>SQL 7.0 SP4
>Background: C++ program accesses SQL via ODBC doing
>massive inserts to two different tables. The data goes
>either to one table or the other, but not both.
>Problem: Is it more efficient to have the program access
>the database as one or two SQL users?
>1. user DOG inserts to table XXX "and" table YYY.
>or
>2. user DOG inserts to table XXX,
> user CAT inserts to table YYY?
>Thanks for your help,
>Don
>.
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Inserting/Updating and locking
We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that users are
complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables are blocking (not
finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole table so
that SELECT's can still be run on the table?Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
That's probably not the problem. While it's likey that SQL Server is
escalating row locks to page locks and even possibly a table lock if
enough rows are affected by the insert/update, while that transaction is
running, there are exclusive locks on those rows/pages/table.
When a page has an exclusive lock, no other readers or writers can touch
the page. They are blocked until the update/insert transaction
completes. That is, unless they use the read uncommited or NOLOCK table
hint on the tables in the Select statements. But since you are updating
information, is it ok for your users to read dirty data? I don't know.
That's up to you to determine. Dirty data arises when data is
updated/inserted in a transaction and another user reads the data using
read uncommitted isolation level. if the update transaction then rolls
back the changes the user that selected the data is staring at data that
doesn't exist any longer in the database.
The other option is to keep the insert/update transactions as short as
possible. Use batches if you need to to. That will keep the outstanding
locks to a minimim.
SQL Server 2005 offers a method for readers to see the original data
even if it's being updated by another user, but this option will likley
introduce overhead in the database because the data is temporarily
written to tempdb so it's available for other users to read. And it's a
database-wide setting.
For SQL 2000, it's either dirty reads or blocking. But short
transactions mitigate most of these problems.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going.
For example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
still cause problems.
What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
once?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated does
have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an Identity
field.
The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is doing the
updates.
Thanks again.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:On30MJv4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike W wrote:
>> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
>> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
>> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
>> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
>> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
> Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going. For
> example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
> inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
> the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
> still cause problems.
> What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
> insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
> insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
> once?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Mike W wrote:
> Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated
> does have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an
> Identity field.
> The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
> I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is
> doing the updates.
> Thanks again.
>
If the clustered index is on something other than a date or an identity,
you have a few potential issues:
1-The clustered index is probably causing page splits as new rows are
inserted. This is a very expensive operation because it requires a page
is split, a new one created, and rows moved around. While this operation
is going on, both pages are locked by SQL Server, adding to the locking
overhead of this operation.
2- The clustered index is likely requiring the disk heads move all
around the physical disk to locate the page to update. There is nothing
slower than random disk access for a database, further slowing down the
operation.
You can mitigate some of the problems here (not the physical disk heads
moving around) by leaving space in your clustered index using a fill
factor. However, this requires you rebuild the clustered index as needed
to maintain the free space before a bulk update of data. Using a fill
factor will leave a percentage of space available in each row and help
prevent page splitting. However, it will make the table a percentage
larger, but this may not be a problem if the free space is going to be
filled with new data anyway.
And the rebuilding of the clustered index will likely affect concurrency
for that table while the rebuild occurs.
If your clustered index is, in fact, on a column or set of columns that
are causing these problem, you may need to consider changing the index
to something that keeps all new data at the end of the table. The other
option is to temporarily remove the clustered index during the load and
rebuild when complete, but this will cause an automatic rebuild of all
non-clustered indexes as well and may be more expensive than what you
want.
A clustered index on an identity can prevent a host of problems and
speed the load process significantly in this case. It's worth a test to
see if it helps the load and if it affects other queries run on that
table.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables are blocking (not
finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole table so
that SELECT's can still be run on the table?Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
That's probably not the problem. While it's likey that SQL Server is
escalating row locks to page locks and even possibly a table lock if
enough rows are affected by the insert/update, while that transaction is
running, there are exclusive locks on those rows/pages/table.
When a page has an exclusive lock, no other readers or writers can touch
the page. They are blocked until the update/insert transaction
completes. That is, unless they use the read uncommited or NOLOCK table
hint on the tables in the Select statements. But since you are updating
information, is it ok for your users to read dirty data? I don't know.
That's up to you to determine. Dirty data arises when data is
updated/inserted in a transaction and another user reads the data using
read uncommitted isolation level. if the update transaction then rolls
back the changes the user that selected the data is staring at data that
doesn't exist any longer in the database.
The other option is to keep the insert/update transactions as short as
possible. Use batches if you need to to. That will keep the outstanding
locks to a minimim.
SQL Server 2005 offers a method for readers to see the original data
even if it's being updated by another user, but this option will likley
introduce overhead in the database because the data is temporarily
written to tempdb so it's available for other users to read. And it's a
database-wide setting.
For SQL 2000, it's either dirty reads or blocking. But short
transactions mitigate most of these problems.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going.
For example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
still cause problems.
What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
once?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated does
have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an Identity
field.
The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is doing the
updates.
Thanks again.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:On30MJv4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike W wrote:
>> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
>> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
>> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
>> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
>> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
> Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going. For
> example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
> inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
> the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
> still cause problems.
> What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
> insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
> insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
> once?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Mike W wrote:
> Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated
> does have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an
> Identity field.
> The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
> I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is
> doing the updates.
> Thanks again.
>
If the clustered index is on something other than a date or an identity,
you have a few potential issues:
1-The clustered index is probably causing page splits as new rows are
inserted. This is a very expensive operation because it requires a page
is split, a new one created, and rows moved around. While this operation
is going on, both pages are locked by SQL Server, adding to the locking
overhead of this operation.
2- The clustered index is likely requiring the disk heads move all
around the physical disk to locate the page to update. There is nothing
slower than random disk access for a database, further slowing down the
operation.
You can mitigate some of the problems here (not the physical disk heads
moving around) by leaving space in your clustered index using a fill
factor. However, this requires you rebuild the clustered index as needed
to maintain the free space before a bulk update of data. Using a fill
factor will leave a percentage of space available in each row and help
prevent page splitting. However, it will make the table a percentage
larger, but this may not be a problem if the free space is going to be
filled with new data anyway.
And the rebuilding of the clustered index will likely affect concurrency
for that table while the rebuild occurs.
If your clustered index is, in fact, on a column or set of columns that
are causing these problem, you may need to consider changing the index
to something that keeps all new data at the end of the table. The other
option is to temporarily remove the clustered index during the load and
rebuild when complete, but this will cause an automatic rebuild of all
non-clustered indexes as well and may be more expensive than what you
want.
A clustered index on an identity can prevent a host of problems and
speed the load process significantly in this case. It's worth a test to
see if it helps the load and if it affects other queries run on that
table.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Inserting/Updating and locking
We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that users are
complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables are blocking (not
finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole table so
that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
That's probably not the problem. While it's likey that SQL Server is
escalating row locks to page locks and even possibly a table lock if
enough rows are affected by the insert/update, while that transaction is
running, there are exclusive locks on those rows/pages/table.
When a page has an exclusive lock, no other readers or writers can touch
the page. They are blocked until the update/insert transaction
completes. That is, unless they use the read uncommited or NOLOCK table
hint on the tables in the Select statements. But since you are updating
information, is it ok for your users to read dirty data? I don't know.
That's up to you to determine. Dirty data arises when data is
updated/inserted in a transaction and another user reads the data using
read uncommitted isolation level. if the update transaction then rolls
back the changes the user that selected the data is staring at data that
doesn't exist any longer in the database.
The other option is to keep the insert/update transactions as short as
possible. Use batches if you need to to. That will keep the outstanding
locks to a minimim.
SQL Server 2005 offers a method for readers to see the original data
even if it's being updated by another user, but this option will likley
introduce overhead in the database because the data is temporarily
written to tempdb so it's available for other users to read. And it's a
database-wide setting.
For SQL 2000, it's either dirty reads or blocking. But short
transactions mitigate most of these problems.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going.
For example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
still cause problems.
What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
once?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated does
have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an Identity
field.
The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is doing the
updates.
Thanks again.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:On30MJv4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike W wrote:
> Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going. For
> example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
> inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
> the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
> still cause problems.
> What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
> insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
> insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
> once?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||Mike W wrote:
> Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated
> does have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an
> Identity field.
> The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
> I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is
> doing the updates.
> Thanks again.
>
If the clustered index is on something other than a date or an identity,
you have a few potential issues:
1-The clustered index is probably causing page splits as new rows are
inserted. This is a very expensive operation because it requires a page
is split, a new one created, and rows moved around. While this operation
is going on, both pages are locked by SQL Server, adding to the locking
overhead of this operation.
2- The clustered index is likely requiring the disk heads move all
around the physical disk to locate the page to update. There is nothing
slower than random disk access for a database, further slowing down the
operation.
You can mitigate some of the problems here (not the physical disk heads
moving around) by leaving space in your clustered index using a fill
factor. However, this requires you rebuild the clustered index as needed
to maintain the free space before a bulk update of data. Using a fill
factor will leave a percentage of space available in each row and help
prevent page splitting. However, it will make the table a percentage
larger, but this may not be a problem if the free space is going to be
filled with new data anyway.
And the rebuilding of the clustered index will likely affect concurrency
for that table while the rebuild occurs.
If your clustered index is, in fact, on a column or set of columns that
are causing these problem, you may need to consider changing the index
to something that keeps all new data at the end of the table. The other
option is to temporarily remove the clustered index during the load and
rebuild when complete, but this will cause an automatic rebuild of all
non-clustered indexes as well and may be more expensive than what you
want.
A clustered index on an identity can prevent a host of problems and
speed the load process significantly in this case. It's worth a test to
see if it helps the load and if it affects other queries run on that
table.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables are blocking (not
finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole table so
that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
That's probably not the problem. While it's likey that SQL Server is
escalating row locks to page locks and even possibly a table lock if
enough rows are affected by the insert/update, while that transaction is
running, there are exclusive locks on those rows/pages/table.
When a page has an exclusive lock, no other readers or writers can touch
the page. They are blocked until the update/insert transaction
completes. That is, unless they use the read uncommited or NOLOCK table
hint on the tables in the Select statements. But since you are updating
information, is it ok for your users to read dirty data? I don't know.
That's up to you to determine. Dirty data arises when data is
updated/inserted in a transaction and another user reads the data using
read uncommitted isolation level. if the update transaction then rolls
back the changes the user that selected the data is staring at data that
doesn't exist any longer in the database.
The other option is to keep the insert/update transactions as short as
possible. Use batches if you need to to. That will keep the outstanding
locks to a minimim.
SQL Server 2005 offers a method for readers to see the original data
even if it's being updated by another user, but this option will likley
introduce overhead in the database because the data is temporarily
written to tempdb so it's available for other users to read. And it's a
database-wide setting.
For SQL 2000, it's either dirty reads or blocking. But short
transactions mitigate most of these problems.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Mike W wrote:
> We are inserting and updating large amounts of rows and find that
> users are complaining that their SELECT queries on the same tables
> are blocking (not finishing) until our INSERT or UPDATE finishes.
> Is there any way to tell an INSERT or UPDATE to not lock the whole
> table so that SELECT's can still be run on the table?
Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going.
For example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
still cause problems.
What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
once?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated does
have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an Identity
field.
The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is doing the
updates.
Thanks again.
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:On30MJv4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mike W wrote:
> Another thing to consider is where the newly inserted rows are going. For
> example, if you have a clustered index on an IDENTITY column, then
> inserting new rows will have less of an effect on existing data because
> the new most of the rows are inserted on new pages. Updated rows will
> still cause problems.
> What is your clustered index on? What data are you inserting? Can you
> insert and update in different transactions? Can you also update and
> insert in small amounts, say 1,000 rows at a time, rather than all at
> once?
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||Mike W wrote:
> Thanks for your responses. I believe the table that is being updated
> does have a Clustered index on the Primary key field, but it's not an
> Identity field.
> The data we are inserting is customer lead information.
> I will ask about the last 2 questions since it is not me that is
> doing the updates.
> Thanks again.
>
If the clustered index is on something other than a date or an identity,
you have a few potential issues:
1-The clustered index is probably causing page splits as new rows are
inserted. This is a very expensive operation because it requires a page
is split, a new one created, and rows moved around. While this operation
is going on, both pages are locked by SQL Server, adding to the locking
overhead of this operation.
2- The clustered index is likely requiring the disk heads move all
around the physical disk to locate the page to update. There is nothing
slower than random disk access for a database, further slowing down the
operation.
You can mitigate some of the problems here (not the physical disk heads
moving around) by leaving space in your clustered index using a fill
factor. However, this requires you rebuild the clustered index as needed
to maintain the free space before a bulk update of data. Using a fill
factor will leave a percentage of space available in each row and help
prevent page splitting. However, it will make the table a percentage
larger, but this may not be a problem if the free space is going to be
filled with new data anyway.
And the rebuilding of the clustered index will likely affect concurrency
for that table while the rebuild occurs.
If your clustered index is, in fact, on a column or set of columns that
are causing these problem, you may need to consider changing the index
to something that keeps all new data at the end of the table. The other
option is to temporarily remove the clustered index during the load and
rebuild when complete, but this will cause an automatic rebuild of all
non-clustered indexes as well and may be more expensive than what you
want.
A clustered index on an identity can prevent a host of problems and
speed the load process significantly in this case. It's worth a test to
see if it helps the load and if it affects other queries run on that
table.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Inserting value to Identity Column
I want all users in database to be able to call Set IDENTITY_INSERT
[table] = ON
However when a user who is not the dbo logs in to execute the stored
procedure I get the following error message.
prcIdentityFudgeSave, Line 8
The current user is not the database or object owner of table
'IdentityFudge'. Cannot perform SET operation.
Please Help
(See Stored Prc below that the users are trying to execute)
CREATE PROCEDURE prcIdentityFudgeSave
(
@.IdentityBeforeTrigger int
) AS
--Fudge the Identity Column
delete From IdentityFudge
SET IDENTITY_INSERT IdentityFudge ON
Insert Into IdentityFudge (IndentityFudgeID) values
(@.IdentityBeforeTrigger)
GO> I want all users in database to be able to call Set IDENTITY_INSERT
> [table] = ON
Then why are you using IDENTITY at all?|||give permission to the SQL Server login [SQL Server authentication] / Window
login [Windows Authentication] to acess the table and sp.
"dermot" <dfrench@.tommyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1110465514.012467.136020@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I want all users in database to be able to call Set IDENTITY_INSERT
> [table] = ON
> However when a user who is not the dbo logs in to execute the stored
> procedure I get the following error message.
> prcIdentityFudgeSave, Line 8
> The current user is not the database or object owner of table
> 'IdentityFudge'. Cannot perform SET operation.
> Please Help
> (See Stored Prc below that the users are trying to execute)
>
> CREATE PROCEDURE prcIdentityFudgeSave
> (
> @.IdentityBeforeTrigger int
> ) AS
> --Fudge the Identity Column
> delete From IdentityFudge
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT IdentityFudge ON
> Insert Into IdentityFudge (IndentityFudgeID) values
> (@.IdentityBeforeTrigger)
> GO
>|||Joel,
I think that is not enough. See "SET IDENTITY_INSERT (Permissions)" in BOL.
AMB
"Joel Leong" wrote:
> give permission to the SQL Server login [SQL Server authentication] / Wind
ow
> login [Windows Authentication] to acess the table and sp.
> "dermot" <dfrench@.tommyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1110465514.012467.136020@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>|||If the value in this column has meaning to your users then don't use
IDENTITY. Why would you want to do this?
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
[table] = ON
However when a user who is not the dbo logs in to execute the stored
procedure I get the following error message.
prcIdentityFudgeSave, Line 8
The current user is not the database or object owner of table
'IdentityFudge'. Cannot perform SET operation.
Please Help
(See Stored Prc below that the users are trying to execute)
CREATE PROCEDURE prcIdentityFudgeSave
(
@.IdentityBeforeTrigger int
) AS
--Fudge the Identity Column
delete From IdentityFudge
SET IDENTITY_INSERT IdentityFudge ON
Insert Into IdentityFudge (IndentityFudgeID) values
(@.IdentityBeforeTrigger)
GO> I want all users in database to be able to call Set IDENTITY_INSERT
> [table] = ON
Then why are you using IDENTITY at all?|||give permission to the SQL Server login [SQL Server authentication] / Window
login [Windows Authentication] to acess the table and sp.
"dermot" <dfrench@.tommyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1110465514.012467.136020@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I want all users in database to be able to call Set IDENTITY_INSERT
> [table] = ON
> However when a user who is not the dbo logs in to execute the stored
> procedure I get the following error message.
> prcIdentityFudgeSave, Line 8
> The current user is not the database or object owner of table
> 'IdentityFudge'. Cannot perform SET operation.
> Please Help
> (See Stored Prc below that the users are trying to execute)
>
> CREATE PROCEDURE prcIdentityFudgeSave
> (
> @.IdentityBeforeTrigger int
> ) AS
> --Fudge the Identity Column
> delete From IdentityFudge
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT IdentityFudge ON
> Insert Into IdentityFudge (IndentityFudgeID) values
> (@.IdentityBeforeTrigger)
> GO
>|||Joel,
I think that is not enough. See "SET IDENTITY_INSERT (Permissions)" in BOL.
AMB
"Joel Leong" wrote:
> give permission to the SQL Server login [SQL Server authentication] / Wind
ow
> login [Windows Authentication] to acess the table and sp.
> "dermot" <dfrench@.tommyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1110465514.012467.136020@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>|||If the value in this column has meaning to your users then don't use
IDENTITY. Why would you want to do this?
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
Friday, February 24, 2012
Inserting special characters
Hi
I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
database.
thanksHi,
Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
type and see if it helps.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||This would be less of a problem if you were using stored procedures. Since
you are probably sending query strings from the web page to the SQL Server,
you may be very vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks. (Write to me off line
and I will give you more information about your vulnerability.)
For the single quote, if you must store them, have the application double
(two single quotes) them before sending to SQL Server. The double quote
shouldn't be a problem -please confirm how you are experiencing the problem.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||HI,
I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
end.
How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
> type and see if it helps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> > are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> > character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> > inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> >
> > I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> > database.
> >
> > thanks
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Use two of them, for example:
CREATE TABLE #MyTable
( RowID int IDENTITY
, MyStringValue varchar(100)
)
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", said =Bill O''Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
-- Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:26E49E21-4F45-4F5E-ABD2-BD5E5D8771C4@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> > I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for =inserting > nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and =the > end. > > How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >> Hi,
>> >> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR =data >> type and see if it helps.
>> >> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> >> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text =area. users
>> > are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit =the
>> > character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters =to be
>> > inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
>> >
>> > I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to =the
>> > database.
>> >
>> > thanks >> >> --=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
Use two of them, for =example:
CREATE TABLE =#MyTable ( =RowID int IDENTITY , MyStringValue varchar(100) )
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", =said Bill O''Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
-- Arnie Rowland, =Ph.D.Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from =experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"panda" wrote in message news:26E49E21-4F45-4F5E-ABD2-BD5E5D8771C4@.microsoft.com...> =HI,> > I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax =for inserting > nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine =the begining and the > end. > > How do i go about =inserting a ' character into the database?> > "Hari Prasad" =wrote:> > Hi,> > Not quite sure what you are =trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data > type and see if it helps.> > Thanks> Hari> SQL =Server MVP> > "panda" wrote in message > news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...> > Hi> =>> > I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users> > are able to insert any character into this area. =When they submit the> > character ' and " causes problems. How =can i allow these characters to be> > inserted into the =database( sql server 2000)?> >> > I am using Java server =page to process and insert the comments to the> > =database.> >> > thanks > > >
--=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380--
I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
database.
thanksHi,
Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
type and see if it helps.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||This would be less of a problem if you were using stored procedures. Since
you are probably sending query strings from the web page to the SQL Server,
you may be very vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks. (Write to me off line
and I will give you more information about your vulnerability.)
For the single quote, if you must store them, have the application double
(two single quotes) them before sending to SQL Server. The double quote
shouldn't be a problem -please confirm how you are experiencing the problem.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||HI,
I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
end.
How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
> type and see if it helps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> > are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> > character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> > inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> >
> > I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> > database.
> >
> > thanks
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Use two of them, for example:
CREATE TABLE #MyTable
( RowID int IDENTITY
, MyStringValue varchar(100)
)
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", said =Bill O''Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
-- Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:26E49E21-4F45-4F5E-ABD2-BD5E5D8771C4@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> > I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for =inserting > nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and =the > end. > > How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >> Hi,
>> >> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR =data >> type and see if it helps.
>> >> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> >> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text =area. users
>> > are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit =the
>> > character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters =to be
>> > inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
>> >
>> > I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to =the
>> > database.
>> >
>> > thanks >> >> --=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
Use two of them, for =example:
CREATE TABLE =#MyTable ( =RowID int IDENTITY , MyStringValue varchar(100) )
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", =said Bill O''Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
-- Arnie Rowland, =Ph.D.Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from =experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"panda"
--=_NextPart_000_05F8_01C6C63E.8066A380--
Inserting special characters
Hi
I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
database.
thanksHi,
Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
type and see if it helps.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||This would be less of a problem if you were using stored procedures. Since
you are probably sending query strings from the web page to the SQL Server,
you may be very vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks. (Write to me off line
and I will give you more information about your vulnerability.)
For the single quote, if you must store them, have the application double
(two single quotes) them before sending to SQL Server. The double quote
shouldn't be a problem -please confirm how you are experiencing the problem.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||HI,
I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
end.
How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
> type and see if it helps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Use two of them, for example:
CREATE TABLE #MyTable
( RowID int IDENTITY
, MyStringValue varchar(100)
)
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", said Bill O'
'Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue
FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:26E49E21-4F45-4F5E-ABD2-BD5E
5D8771C4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> HI,
>
> I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
> nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
> end.
>
> How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
>
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>
I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
database.
thanksHi,
Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
type and see if it helps.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||This would be less of a problem if you were using stored procedures. Since
you are probably sending query strings from the web page to the SQL Server,
you may be very vulnerable to SQL Injection attacks. (Write to me off line
and I will give you more information about your vulnerability.)
For the single quote, if you must store them, have the application double
(two single quotes) them before sending to SQL Server. The double quote
shouldn't be a problem -please confirm how you are experiencing the problem.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a web page where users insert some comments into a text area. users
> are able to insert any character into this area. When they submit the
> character ' and " causes problems. How can i allow these characters to be
> inserted into the database( sql server 2000)?
> I am using Java server page to process and insert the comments to the
> database.
> thanks|||HI,
I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
end.
How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Not quite sure what you are trying exactly. Just try using NVARCHAR data
> type and see if it helps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CF0A3B21-D97F-44C6-800B-88B3B54E501C@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Use two of them, for example:
CREATE TABLE #MyTable
( RowID int IDENTITY
, MyStringValue varchar(100)
)
INSERT INTO #MyTable VALUES ('"This isn''t so obvious, is it?", said Bill O'
'Shea to Terrance O''Donald.')
SELECT MyStringValue
FROM #MyTable
DROP TABLE #MyTable
Hope that this helps...
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"panda" <panda@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:26E49E21-4F45-4F5E-ABD2-BD5E
5D8771C4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> HI,
>
> I am trying to insert a ' charcerter. However the SQL syntax for inserting
> nvarchar or strings use the ' character to determine the begining and the
> end.
>
> How do i go about inserting a ' character into the database?
>
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Inserting Picture in Report Builder Report
Hi everyone,
I want my users to be able to insert the logo when they create reports using report builder. Documentation tells that under Insert tab you can click on "Picture" and then browse to the location of the file and insert a picture. But I dont see "Picture" option under Insert menu. I only see 3 options "text box","Filter Description" and "Total Row Count".
Any Idea?
Thanks
Ashwini
add the text box and then insert a picture into the text box|||By Adding the text box it will not give me any options for inserting the picture. If I right click on the text box only format option is provided and there is no option for inserting picture inside the format dialog.|||drag the Image tool from the Toolbox to location you want, the Image Wizard will come up.
If you put the Image tool directly into a table or matrix cell it is hard to control the size of it, that is why i suggested adding the text box as a container for the image.
|||May this be related to some setting you have made during installation. On my instance of report server and report builder you can find the insert picture command under Insert menu.
Read more on sql server books online: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa337126.aspx.
By the way, reply made by dlgross seems to be related to report designer, not report builder.
|||Yes this is the document which I was talking about in my first post. But I dont see the Picture option under Insert Menu. Is this feature newly added in SP2? or it was there before that also any idea?
Thanks
Ashwini
|||We recently upgraded to SP2. As I can recollect the insert image feature was ther before we upgraded too.
|||I have tried a bunch of different scenarios (open from file, open from server, etc) but haven't been able to repro this -- I keep thinking that maybe it's some sort of "rights" thing. Like, if the report is opened from an external server maybe you don't have rights to browse for an image file. I haven't hit any case where it fails yet.
The only other idea I've had is: Have you been trying repeatedly with the same test report? Does it happen with *every* report, or just the one? If just the one, how was that report originally created?
>L<
|||No I have tried with different reports. I closed and opend the report builder tool many times to make sure if that was the issue nothing worked. And also I am working on my local machine with my local server so permission should not be a problem here I think.
Thanks
Ashwini
Inserting Picture in Report Builder Report
Hi everyone,
I want my users to be able to insert the logo when they create reports using report builder. Documentation tells that under Insert tab you can click on "Picture" and then browse to the location of the file and insert a picture. But I dont see "Picture" option under Insert menu. I only see 3 options "text box","Filter Description" and "Total Row Count".
Any Idea?
Thanks
Ashwini
add the text box and then insert a picture into the text box|||By Adding the text box it will not give me any options for inserting the picture. If I right click on the text box only format option is provided and there is no option for inserting picture inside the format dialog.|||drag the Image tool from the Toolbox to location you want, the Image Wizard will come up.
If you put the Image tool directly into a table or matrix cell it is hard to control the size of it, that is why i suggested adding the text box as a container for the image.
|||May this be related to some setting you have made during installation. On my instance of report server and report builder you can find the insert picture command under Insert menu.
Read more on sql server books online: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa337126.aspx.
By the way, reply made by dlgross seems to be related to report designer, not report builder.
|||Yes this is the document which I was talking about in my first post. But I dont see the Picture option under Insert Menu. Is this feature newly added in SP2? or it was there before that also any idea?
Thanks
Ashwini
|||We recently upgraded to SP2. As I can recollect the insert image feature was ther before we upgraded too.
|||I have tried a bunch of different scenarios (open from file, open from server, etc) but haven't been able to repro this -- I keep thinking that maybe it's some sort of "rights" thing. Like, if the report is opened from an external server maybe you don't have rights to browse for an image file. I haven't hit any case where it fails yet.
The only other idea I've had is: Have you been trying repeatedly with the same test report? Does it happen with *every* report, or just the one? If just the one, how was that report originally created?
>L<
|||No I have tried with different reports. I closed and opend the report builder tool many times to make sure if that was the issue nothing worked. And also I am working on my local machine with my local server so permission should not be a problem here I think.
Thanks
Ashwini
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)