Hi,
I created 2 nodes active/passive and tested the failover.
It worked.
I added a 3rd nodes as active.
Now nothing can failover to the passive.
Any suggestions where I should start troubleshooting.
Thanks in advance.
I'd start by checking the NT eventlogs for any related error, and if
necessary checking the cluster log.
It would also help to observe more closely the behavior of the cluster when
you try to move the group to the 'passive node' Do you see certain resources
online there at least briefly? Does this happen to all the groups? If it's
just some group(s), it could be because you have not done the necessary setup
on the added node as required by the app in the group.
Linchi
"sqlapprentice" wrote:
> Hi,
> I created 2 nodes active/passive and tested the failover.
> It worked.
> I added a 3rd nodes as active.
> Now nothing can failover to the passive.
> Any suggestions where I should start troubleshooting.
> Thanks in advance.
|||Thank you Linchi,
I talked to MS premier support and I ran the SQLDiag.
They could not find anything.
SQLCluster services keeps failing.
Do I have a problem with my registry or ODBC or name resolution?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd start by checking the NT eventlogs for any related error, and if
> necessary checking the cluster log.
> It would also help to observe more closely the behavior of the cluster when
> you try to move the group to the 'passive node' Do you see certain resources
> online there at least briefly? Does this happen to all the groups? If it's
> just some group(s), it could be because you have not done the necessary setup
> on the added node as required by the app in the group.
> Linchi
> "sqlapprentice" wrote:
|||Have you checked the Possible owners for the SQL resources?
SQLDiag is almost useless in troubleshooting a cluster issue. SQL
MPSReports gathers the information PSS needs.
Can the cluster resources move to all nodes?
32 bit or 64 bit?
Is this your setup?:
Instance one can live on node 1 or 2
Instance two can live on node 3 or 2
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.expertsrt.com - not your average tech Q&A site
"sqlapprentice" <sqlapprentice@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF44A9E3-A82D-4D1B-A4A3-0D45917C3E1E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you Linchi,
> I talked to MS premier support and I ran the SQLDiag.
> They could not find anything.
> SQLCluster services keeps failing.
> Do I have a problem with my registry or ODBC or name resolution?
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
|||Can you do the following:
1. Stop the SQL Server
2. With the entire group shut down, move the group to another node
3. If it moves over, go to the Service Control applet, and start the SQL
Server service
4. Shut it down and repeat on the other node
5. If this works, then you cluster config is definitely the problem.
6. If something doesn't work, you are going to get an error of some kind in
the event logs that points to the issue
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedNoSpam3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:Ou2BG4AQGHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you checked the Possible owners for the SQL resources?
> SQLDiag is almost useless in troubleshooting a cluster issue. SQL
> MPSReports gathers the information PSS needs.
> Can the cluster resources move to all nodes?
> 32 bit or 64 bit?
> Is this your setup?:
> Instance one can live on node 1 or 2
> Instance two can live on node 3 or 2
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.expertsrt.com - not your average tech Q&A site
>
> "sqlapprentice" <sqlapprentice@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BF44A9E3-A82D-4D1B-A4A3-0D45917C3E1E@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Hi Michael,
I found out that the MDAC and the registry were missing the named instance
entries.
Not sure what happen.
I fixed the registry and MDAC and the clusters are working now.
I cannot understand why adding a third cluster node as active created so
much problems.
Thanks again for the great help.
"Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:Oi73qmNQGHA.4900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Can you do the following:
> 1. Stop the SQL Server
> 2. With the entire group shut down, move the group to another node
> 3. If it moves over, go to the Service Control applet, and start the SQL
> Server service
> 4. Shut it down and repeat on the other node
> 5. If this works, then you cluster config is definitely the problem.
> 6. If something doesn't work, you are going to get an error of some kind
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> the event logs that points to the issue
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Kevin3NF" <Kevin@.DontNeedNoSpam3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:Ou2BG4AQGHA.5400@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
message[vbcol=seagreen]
necessary
>
Showing posts with label created. Show all posts
Showing posts with label created. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
2PC transaction replication problem
I created a 2PC transaction replication on a simple database for testing.
Changes in the publisher are successfully replicated to the subscriber.
However, when changes are made to the subscriber, the following error
message is shown:
"Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the database
row you are modifying no longer exists in the database."
Could somebody help to solve the problem?
Thanks in advance!
KM
KM,
can you do a search on hte publisher for the PK value of the row you are
changing. Presumably it is not there and sp_browsereplcmds on the
distributor should reveal a relevant delete statement.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||where are you seeing this message? DataGrid?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAZEcl2hEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I created a 2PC transaction replication on a simple database for testing.
> Changes in the publisher are successfully replicated to the subscriber.
> However, when changes are made to the subscriber, the following error
> message is shown:
>
> "Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the
database
> row you are modifying no longer exists in the database."
>
> Could somebody help to solve the problem?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> KM
>
|||Hi Paul,
There are only 3 rows in my table. The PK values in the subscriber and
publisher are exactly the same. The PK column of both the subscriber and the
publisher are marked as Identity (Not For Replication). I got the same
message even if I add a new row in the subscriber.
In the Query Analyzer on the publishing database, I tried the
sp_browsereplcmds and got the message:
"Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'."
KM
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:em3ZXU3hEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> KM,
> can you do a search on hte publisher for the PK value of the row you are
> changing. Presumably it is not there and sp_browsereplcmds on the
> distributor should reveal a relevant delete statement.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||Hi Hilary,
I opened the subscriber database table by selecting "Open Table | Return All
Rows" in the Enterprise Manager. Made change to one of the rows. When I
tried to leave the row, a dialog box popped up which showed the message:
Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the database
row you are modifying no longer exists in the database.
Database error: '[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server][OLE/DB
provider returned message: New transaction cannont enlist in the specified
transaction coordinator]...
.... The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB provider
'SQKOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed transaction'
KM
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:%23XSgUZ3hEHA.244@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> where are you seeing this message? DataGrid?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OAZEcl2hEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
testing.
> database
>
|||try running this command in the distributor.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u24De94hEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Paul,
> There are only 3 rows in my table. The PK values in the subscriber and
> publisher are exactly the same. The PK column of both the subscriber and
the
> publisher are marked as Identity (Not For Replication). I got the same
> message even if I add a new row in the subscriber.
> In the Query Analyzer on the publishing database, I tried the
> sp_browsereplcmds and got the message:
> "Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'."
> KM
>
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:em3ZXU3hEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi Hilary,
I get the same message when running the command in both the distributor and
the subscriber.
KM
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:uCyeWO6hEHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> try running this command in the distributor.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u24De94hEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> the
are
>
|||KM,
I wasn't very precise but by distributor I meant distribution database on
the distributor - the sp should be there. Please post back after running it
to tell us if the rows you refer to are have been modified on the publisher.
TIA,
Paul Ibison
|||Hi Paul,
I found the stored procedure in BOL. I think I must have done something
wrong. Please let me know if I have carried out the steps correctly or not:
1. In the Query Analyzer, connect to the distribution SQL server.
2. Select the distribution database in the dropdown list
3. Enter exec sp_browsereplcmds and press F5
The following message was displayed in the message pane:
Server: Msg 2812, Level 16, State 62, Line 1
Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'.
Thanks in advance.
KM
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:%23qrm%23XCiEHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> KM,
> I wasn't very precise but by distributor I meant distribution database on
> the distributor - the sp should be there. Please post back after running
it
> to tell us if the rows you refer to are have been modified on the
publisher.
> TIA,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||Krygim,
everything you've done looks correct, but I've never heard of this before.
Can you run this:
sp_browsereplcmds
go
select db_name()
(just to check that you are in the correct database). If it returns
'distribution' then perhaps a service-pack install didn't succeed and you
could check sqlsp.log file from the c:\windows directory to see if this is
the case.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
Changes in the publisher are successfully replicated to the subscriber.
However, when changes are made to the subscriber, the following error
message is shown:
"Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the database
row you are modifying no longer exists in the database."
Could somebody help to solve the problem?
Thanks in advance!
KM
KM,
can you do a search on hte publisher for the PK value of the row you are
changing. Presumably it is not there and sp_browsereplcmds on the
distributor should reveal a relevant delete statement.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||where are you seeing this message? DataGrid?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAZEcl2hEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I created a 2PC transaction replication on a simple database for testing.
> Changes in the publisher are successfully replicated to the subscriber.
> However, when changes are made to the subscriber, the following error
> message is shown:
>
> "Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the
database
> row you are modifying no longer exists in the database."
>
> Could somebody help to solve the problem?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> KM
>
|||Hi Paul,
There are only 3 rows in my table. The PK values in the subscriber and
publisher are exactly the same. The PK column of both the subscriber and the
publisher are marked as Identity (Not For Replication). I got the same
message even if I add a new row in the subscriber.
In the Query Analyzer on the publishing database, I tried the
sp_browsereplcmds and got the message:
"Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'."
KM
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:em3ZXU3hEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> KM,
> can you do a search on hte publisher for the PK value of the row you are
> changing. Presumably it is not there and sp_browsereplcmds on the
> distributor should reveal a relevant delete statement.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||Hi Hilary,
I opened the subscriber database table by selecting "Open Table | Return All
Rows" in the Enterprise Manager. Made change to one of the rows. When I
tried to leave the row, a dialog box popped up which showed the message:
Another user has modified the contents of this table or view; the database
row you are modifying no longer exists in the database.
Database error: '[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server][OLE/DB
provider returned message: New transaction cannont enlist in the specified
transaction coordinator]...
.... The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB provider
'SQKOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed transaction'
KM
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:%23XSgUZ3hEHA.244@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> where are you seeing this message? DataGrid?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OAZEcl2hEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
testing.
> database
>
|||try running this command in the distributor.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u24De94hEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Paul,
> There are only 3 rows in my table. The PK values in the subscriber and
> publisher are exactly the same. The PK column of both the subscriber and
the
> publisher are marked as Identity (Not For Replication). I got the same
> message even if I add a new row in the subscriber.
> In the Query Analyzer on the publishing database, I tried the
> sp_browsereplcmds and got the message:
> "Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'."
> KM
>
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:em3ZXU3hEHA.4064@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi Hilary,
I get the same message when running the command in both the distributor and
the subscriber.
KM
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:uCyeWO6hEHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> try running this command in the distributor.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Krygim" <krygim@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u24De94hEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> the
are
>
|||KM,
I wasn't very precise but by distributor I meant distribution database on
the distributor - the sp should be there. Please post back after running it
to tell us if the rows you refer to are have been modified on the publisher.
TIA,
Paul Ibison
|||Hi Paul,
I found the stored procedure in BOL. I think I must have done something
wrong. Please let me know if I have carried out the steps correctly or not:
1. In the Query Analyzer, connect to the distribution SQL server.
2. Select the distribution database in the dropdown list
3. Enter exec sp_browsereplcmds and press F5
The following message was displayed in the message pane:
Server: Msg 2812, Level 16, State 62, Line 1
Could not find stored procedure 'sp_browsereplcmds'.
Thanks in advance.
KM
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:%23qrm%23XCiEHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> KM,
> I wasn't very precise but by distributor I meant distribution database on
> the distributor - the sp should be there. Please post back after running
it
> to tell us if the rows you refer to are have been modified on the
publisher.
> TIA,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||Krygim,
everything you've done looks correct, but I've never heard of this before.
Can you run this:
sp_browsereplcmds
go
select db_name()
(just to check that you are in the correct database). If it returns
'distribution' then perhaps a service-pack install didn't succeed and you
could check sqlsp.log file from the c:\windows directory to see if this is
the case.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
2nd Table on Report Shifts Down
Hi
I have created a report with in reporting services with 2 tables. One at the top of the page, and one at the bottom. The one at the top will contain payment details which grows depending on how many items(rows) are in my dataset and the table at the bottom contains a cheque layout - for ex. Pay Mr X, Date...etc. This table will fill out boxes on a cheque
My problem is that the table at the bottom(cheque) is being shifted down depending on what's in the top table(payment items). I need that the cheque table remain in the sample position, independent from what is in the payment table.
Has anybody ever encountered this problem and have a solution to it?
Thanks in advance.Hi
managed to solve this problem using Sub Reports. I put the top table into a sub report and it works fine.
The only problem is when adding another level of grouping in the Table within the sub report, the initial problem emerges again.
Any other ideas?
|||Try putting the table inside of a rectangle (invisible border). The table should "consume" the space in the containing rectangle before pushing the other table down. However, there is no guarantee that the bottom table will stay on the page if the top grows too much.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
2005 SP2: failed to modify maintenance paln
After upgrading to SP2, I created a maintenance plan in the management studio using the wizard. The plan executes OK. But when I tried to modify it, I got the following error, and cannot load and modify:
Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: component (System.Design)
Please help ASAP.
Ed
Can you please submit this as a defect on Microsoft Connect? Please include steps to reproduce the problem, screen shots, and as much details information about the error message (sometimes you can copy the "stack trace" which is very useful to our dev team).
Microsoft Connect:
http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Feedback/
Paul A. Mestemaker II
Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Manageability
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlrem/
2005 SP2: failed to modify maintenance paln
After upgrading to SP2, I created a maintenance plan in the management studio using the wizard. The plan executes OK. But when I tried to modify it, I got the following error, and cannot load and modify:
Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: component (System.Design)
Please help ASAP.
Ed
Can you please submit this as a defect on Microsoft Connect? Please include steps to reproduce the problem, screen shots, and as much details information about the error message (sometimes you can copy the "stack trace" which is very useful to our dev team).
Microsoft Connect:
http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Feedback/
Paul A. Mestemaker II
Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Manageability
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlrem/
Friday, February 24, 2012
2005 Reporting Srv cannot connect to Oracle datasource on web server
created an Oracle datasource (tried both ole db & oracle client) in Visual Studio 2005 report project - works fine connecting and preview of report within ide , deployed to Reporting Services web server, received the following error when attempting to run the report on web server:
An error has occurred during report processing. (rsProcessingAborted)
Cannot create a connection to data source 'oracle'. (rsErrorOpeningConnection)
System.Data.OracleClient requires Oracle client software version 8.1.7 or greater.
web server has oracle client 9i client installed and connecting to db ok through sql plus (this server also is loaded with VS2005 and the SqlServer2005 db)
any thoughts or direction greatly appreciated
Most likely the RS web service and the RS windows service cannot access the Oracle client installation due to missing file system permissions. Please read the following KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;870668
-- Robert
|||Robert,
Thanks for the help, this did in fact solve the issue (once the permissions were granted for the entire Oracle directory). Why would such a helpful article not show up in my searches through the help maze? Is there another entry point to search for these articles other than the help search engine?
thanks again,
Richard
|||Wow this really helped me out also, had the exact same problem. Thanks. I too had to set the permissions for the entire Oracle directory for this to work. Also take note of which account your installation is using, mine wasn't using the Network Service account but instead a special service account created by the system admins, I had to set the permissions for that account on the folders.
Dave
2005 Reporting Srv cannot connect to Oracle datasource on web server
created an Oracle datasource (tried both ole db & oracle client) in Visual Studio 2005 report project - works fine connecting and preview of report within ide , deployed to Reporting Services web server, received the following error when attempting to run the report on web server:
An error has occurred during report processing. (rsProcessingAborted)
Cannot create a connection to data source 'oracle'. (rsErrorOpeningConnection)
System.Data.OracleClient requires Oracle client software version 8.1.7 or greater.
web server has oracle client 9i client installed and connecting to db ok through sql plus (this server also is loaded with VS2005 and the SqlServer2005 db)
any thoughts or direction greatly appreciated
Most likely the RS web service and the RS windows service cannot access the Oracle client installation due to missing file system permissions. Please read the following KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;870668
-- Robert
|||Robert,
Thanks for the help, this did in fact solve the issue (once the permissions were granted for the entire Oracle directory). Why would such a helpful article not show up in my searches through the help maze? Is there another entry point to search for these articles other than the help search engine?
thanks again,
Richard
|||Wow this really helped me out also, had the exact same problem. Thanks. I too had to set the permissions for the entire Oracle directory for this to work. Also take note of which account your installation is using, mine wasn't using the Network Service account but instead a special service account created by the system admins, I had to set the permissions for that account on the folders.
Dave
2005 reporting services and parameters
I have created an SP that has 3 parameters.
I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask for
the info.
I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
"exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the purpose
of params.
TIA,
JoeSupport for sp in the wizards is weak. Hard code the parameter just for the
wizard.
exec yourproc 'sometext', 0.101,'someothertext'
After running the wizard go to the dataset, change the command type to
stored procedure and put in just the name of the stored procedure (do not
put exec).
yourproc
RS will now recognize the parameters and add report parameters to match the
query parameters and map them. It is important to understand that query
params and report parameters are two different things. The reason it is
important is because you can base a query parameter on a expression instead
of using a report parameter.
Anyway, that is an aside. Follow the above and it should work for you.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E52E72C-190A-4052-BA09-4527EB8831B3@.microsoft.com...
>I have created an SP that has 3 parameters.
> I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
> have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
> the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask
> for
> the info.
> I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
> "exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
> paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the
> purpose
> of params.
> TIA,
> Joe|||Thank you! This was driving me crazy.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Support for sp in the wizards is weak. Hard code the parameter just for the
> wizard.
> exec yourproc 'sometext', 0.101,'someothertext'
> After running the wizard go to the dataset, change the command type to
> stored procedure and put in just the name of the stored procedure (do not
> put exec).
> yourproc
> RS will now recognize the parameters and add report parameters to match the
> query parameters and map them. It is important to understand that query
> params and report parameters are two different things. The reason it is
> important is because you can base a query parameter on a expression instead
> of using a report parameter.
> Anyway, that is an aside. Follow the above and it should work for you.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E52E72C-190A-4052-BA09-4527EB8831B3@.microsoft.com...
> >I have created an SP that has 3 parameters.
> > I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
> > have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
> > the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask
> > for
> > the info.
> > I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
> > "exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
> > paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the
> > purpose
> > of params.
> > TIA,
> > Joe
>
>|||Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
tables?
I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
about every Stored Proc I write.
Thanks,
Joe|||Not true.
I use temp tables all the time.
Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored procedure.
I.e. do not do this:
drop table #temp
Let it fall out of scope naturally.
Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
Something like this:
select * from #temp
Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any problem
whatsoever.
If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are doing.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
> Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
> tables?
> I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
> about every Stored Proc I write.
> Thanks,
> Joe|||Thank you. I will try this on my next proc. Most of my temp tables are
created using select into statements. This could be my issue.
Thanks again for the help.
Joe
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Not true.
> I use temp tables all the time.
> Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored procedure.
> I.e. do not do this:
> drop table #temp
> Let it fall out of scope naturally.
> Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
> Something like this:
> select * from #temp
> Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any problem
> whatsoever.
> If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are doing.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
> > Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
> > tables?
> >
> > I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
> > about every Stored Proc I write.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
>
>|||Select into is fine. But, you also need to finish up with a Select * from
#temp.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9743C586-BF52-4FAB-ABF0-84A09F22958D@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you. I will try this on my next proc. Most of my temp tables are
> created using select into statements. This could be my issue.
> Thanks again for the help.
> Joe
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> Not true.
>> I use temp tables all the time.
>> Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored
>> procedure.
>> I.e. do not do this:
>> drop table #temp
>> Let it fall out of scope naturally.
>> Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
>> Something like this:
>> select * from #temp
>> Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any
>> problem
>> whatsoever.
>> If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are
>> doing.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like
>> > #temp
>> > tables?
>> >
>> > I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in
>> > just
>> > about every Stored Proc I write.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Joe
>>
I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask for
the info.
I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
"exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the purpose
of params.
TIA,
JoeSupport for sp in the wizards is weak. Hard code the parameter just for the
wizard.
exec yourproc 'sometext', 0.101,'someothertext'
After running the wizard go to the dataset, change the command type to
stored procedure and put in just the name of the stored procedure (do not
put exec).
yourproc
RS will now recognize the parameters and add report parameters to match the
query parameters and map them. It is important to understand that query
params and report parameters are two different things. The reason it is
important is because you can base a query parameter on a expression instead
of using a report parameter.
Anyway, that is an aside. Follow the above and it should work for you.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E52E72C-190A-4052-BA09-4527EB8831B3@.microsoft.com...
>I have created an SP that has 3 parameters.
> I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
> have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
> the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask
> for
> the info.
> I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
> "exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
> paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the
> purpose
> of params.
> TIA,
> Joe|||Thank you! This was driving me crazy.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Support for sp in the wizards is weak. Hard code the parameter just for the
> wizard.
> exec yourproc 'sometext', 0.101,'someothertext'
> After running the wizard go to the dataset, change the command type to
> stored procedure and put in just the name of the stored procedure (do not
> put exec).
> yourproc
> RS will now recognize the parameters and add report parameters to match the
> query parameters and map them. It is important to understand that query
> params and report parameters are two different things. The reason it is
> important is because you can base a query parameter on a expression instead
> of using a report parameter.
> Anyway, that is an aside. Follow the above and it should work for you.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E52E72C-190A-4052-BA09-4527EB8831B3@.microsoft.com...
> >I have created an SP that has 3 parameters.
> > I would like to creat a report using this SP. in other reporting tools I
> > have created the report and I had it call an SP instead of using a query.
> > the reporting tools would alway add the paramters to the report and ask
> > for
> > the info.
> > I can't seem to create a report using SQL reporting services. I add
> > "exec ProcNAme" in the report wizard, but it tells me it is expecting
> > paramaters. I can't hard code the paramters, that would defeat the
> > purpose
> > of params.
> > TIA,
> > Joe
>
>|||Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
tables?
I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
about every Stored Proc I write.
Thanks,
Joe|||Not true.
I use temp tables all the time.
Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored procedure.
I.e. do not do this:
drop table #temp
Let it fall out of scope naturally.
Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
Something like this:
select * from #temp
Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any problem
whatsoever.
If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are doing.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
> Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
> tables?
> I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
> about every Stored Proc I write.
> Thanks,
> Joe|||Thank you. I will try this on my next proc. Most of my temp tables are
created using select into statements. This could be my issue.
Thanks again for the help.
Joe
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Not true.
> I use temp tables all the time.
> Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored procedure.
> I.e. do not do this:
> drop table #temp
> Let it fall out of scope naturally.
> Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
> Something like this:
> select * from #temp
> Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any problem
> whatsoever.
> If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are doing.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
> > Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like #temp
> > tables?
> >
> > I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in just
> > about every Stored Proc I write.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
>
>|||Select into is fine. But, you also need to finish up with a Select * from
#temp.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9743C586-BF52-4FAB-ABF0-84A09F22958D@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you. I will try this on my next proc. Most of my temp tables are
> created using select into statements. This could be my issue.
> Thanks again for the help.
> Joe
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> Not true.
>> I use temp tables all the time.
>> Do the following. Do not explicitly drop the table in your stored
>> procedure.
>> I.e. do not do this:
>> drop table #temp
>> Let it fall out of scope naturally.
>> Second, do a select statement before exiting your stored procedure.
>> Something like this:
>> select * from #temp
>> Just about every stored procedure I use uses temp tables without any
>> problem
>> whatsoever.
>> If you continue to have problems post some examples of what you are
>> doing.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:EF45BAF3-F049-4FF5-B144-30F294B3AE2B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Have you also noticed that SQL 2005 reporting services does not like
>> > #temp
>> > tables?
>> >
>> > I dont understand what Microsoft was thinking, I use temp tables in
>> > just
>> > about every Stored Proc I write.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Joe
>>
Thursday, February 16, 2012
2005 Fully qualified names.
In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
Simon
But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views ?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I guess I understated that some
. I always tell people to qualify objects
no matter what as well.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
Simon
But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views ?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon
|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I guess I understated that some
. I always tell people to qualify objectsno matter what as well.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
2005 Fully qualified names.
In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
SimonHi
This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
e.g
sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
Regards
VT
Knowledge is power, share it...
http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views
?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created a
nd
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensu
re
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>|||I guess I understated that some. I always tell people to qualify objects
no matter what as well.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
SimonHi
This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
e.g
sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
Regards
VT
Knowledge is power, share it...
http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views
?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created a
nd
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensu
re
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>|||I guess I understated that some
. I always tell people to qualify objectsno matter what as well.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
2005 Fully qualified names.
In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
SimonHi
This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
e.g
sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
Regards
VT
Knowledge is power, share it...
http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> > In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> > and
> > maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> > on
> > a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> > ensure
> > i can query just on tablename ?
> >
> > Simon
>
>|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views ?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
>> and
>> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
>> on
>> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
>> ensure
>> i can query just on tablename ?
>> Simon
>|||I guess I understated that some:). I always tell people to qualify objects
no matter what as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
>> and
>> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run
>> queries on
>> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
>> ensure
>> i can query just on tablename ?
>> Simon
>>
>
maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
i can query just on tablename ?
SimonHi
This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
e.g
sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
Regards
VT
Knowledge is power, share it...
http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||But I`m logging onto query analyzer as JM. So I would expect not to have to
qualify the name. If I changed the database ownership to dbo then wouldn`t
that ensure that I`d have to use dbo.tablename ?
Si
"vt" wrote:
> Hi
> This is because JM is the owner of the object ,
> use sp_changeobjectowner to change the owner form jm to dbo
> e.g
> sp_changeobjectowner 'Table' , 'dbo'
>
> Regards
> VT
> Knowledge is power, share it...
> http://oneplace4sql.blogspot.com/
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> > In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> > and
> > maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> > on
> > a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> > ensure
> > i can query just on tablename ?
> >
> > Simon
>
>|||Simon
In SQL Server 2005 MS has introduced SCHEMA that all database objects belong
to. Think about a container that holds objects.
You will have to be a memeber of sysadmin server role as well as db_owner
database role.
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||Ok thats cool, I understand this and have changed my ownership accordingly.
Is there an easy way to alter the qualified names in strored procs and views ?
Si
"Simon" wrote:
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
> and
> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
> on
> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
> ensure
> i can query just on tablename ?
> Simon|||I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
some effort.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
>> and
>> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run queries
>> on
>> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
>> ensure
>> i can query just on tablename ?
>> Simon
>|||I guess I understated that some:). I always tell people to qualify objects
no matter what as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eX7ZDnZuHHA.5028@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I teach my clients that it is MANDATORY to qualify every database object.
>:-) There is just no valid reason not to IMHO, and it does save the engine
>some effort.
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:ujJxPjYuHHA.3480@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It is a good idea to always schema qualify all objects anyway.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2CFA854D-47A1-4676-B80D-47341B87D408@.microsoft.com...
>> In SQL 2005 I have a server with a username of JM. This username created
>> and
>> maintains a database. When I login via query analyser I can`t run
>> queries on
>> a table unless I qualify it JM.tablename. How do I alter the login to
>> ensure
>> i can query just on tablename ?
>> Simon
>>
>
Monday, February 13, 2012
2005 FT - Unable to re-populate catalogue
Hi,
I have a clustered 2005 server (build 9.00.1399.06). On the server I have 3
FT catalogues.
When I created the first catalogue everything was fine. The catalogue built
fine and returns results correctly (sooo much quicker than 2000!). Then I
tried to do a full re-population.
The full text service appeared to hang and never re-populate the catalogue.
From various bits of testing I have found this:
Using sp_who and sp_lock I can see that the Gatherer spid is blocked by the
FT Monitor spid. The Gatherer has await resource of MD 24(7:0:0) which the
monitor has Sch-S lock on. Being a system process I cannot kill it. During
this time I cannot access the Full text screen in Man Studio (blocked again),
but I can query other catalogues.
When it appears to hang as above I tried stopping the FT service in cluster
admin. The process would not stop. I have to kill it using task manager.
After a restart of just the full text service I cannot access the FT
catalogue screen, though strangley I can't see any blocking. The catalogue
appears not to be rebuilt. I can query other catalogues fine. I cannot see
any blocking of gatherer (I can't see it in sp_who), or any other blocking
spids for that matter.
Last resort I restart the Full text service and SQL Service. Upon restarting
the catalogue starts repopulating straight away. I can access it in Man
Studio, it completes fine and everything is good. Until I try to start a full
population again. (BTW I've tried incremental and rebuilding - same as above
happens).
So in other words I have to restart the SQL service everytime I want to
re-populate my FT catalogue.
I'm hoping someone can help me. Any form of suggestion welcomed!
Thanks
I just found out that FT keeps a log. Here is part of todays output (it is
repeated several times):
2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for table
or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID '5',
database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface that
was marshalled for a different thread.).
2005-11-17 11:16:16.30 spid12s The full-text catalog health monitor
reported a failure for full-text catalog "FTC_MYCatName" (5) in database
"IMS" (6). Reason code: 0. Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an
interface that was marshalled for a different thread.). The system will
restart any in-progress population from the previous checkpoint. If this
message occurs frequently, consult SQL Server Books Online for
troubleshooting assistance. This is an informational message only. No user
action is required.
2005-11-17 11:22:16.86 spid13s Informational: Reinitialized full-text
Full population for table or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' (table or
indexed view ID '1253579504', database ID '6') after a temporary failure.
Prior to error, the number of documents processed: 60800, errors encountered:
0.
"Simon" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a clustered 2005 server (build 9.00.1399.06). On the server I have 3
> FT catalogues.
> When I created the first catalogue everything was fine. The catalogue built
> fine and returns results correctly (sooo much quicker than 2000!). Then I
> tried to do a full re-population.
> The full text service appeared to hang and never re-populate the catalogue.
> From various bits of testing I have found this:
> Using sp_who and sp_lock I can see that the Gatherer spid is blocked by the
> FT Monitor spid. The Gatherer has await resource of MD 24(7:0:0) which the
> monitor has Sch-S lock on. Being a system process I cannot kill it. During
> this time I cannot access the Full text screen in Man Studio (blocked again),
> but I can query other catalogues.
> When it appears to hang as above I tried stopping the FT service in cluster
> admin. The process would not stop. I have to kill it using task manager.
> After a restart of just the full text service I cannot access the FT
> catalogue screen, though strangley I can't see any blocking. The catalogue
> appears not to be rebuilt. I can query other catalogues fine. I cannot see
> any blocking of gatherer (I can't see it in sp_who), or any other blocking
> spids for that matter.
> Last resort I restart the Full text service and SQL Service. Upon restarting
> the catalogue starts repopulating straight away. I can access it in Man
> Studio, it completes fine and everything is good. Until I try to start a full
> population again. (BTW I've tried incremental and rebuilding - same as above
> happens).
> So in other words I have to restart the SQL service everytime I want to
> re-populate my FT catalogue.
> I'm hoping someone can help me. Any form of suggestion welcomed!
> Thanks
>
>
|||Sounds like Monitor is locking with the population process. The population
does put locks on the rows and table it is indexing to preserve
transactional consistency.
It looks like you have to do a less invasive form of monitoring.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B782A40-FF11-4694-B21A-0EFFBA0F5F02@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I just found out that FT keeps a log. Here is part of todays output (it is
> repeated several times):
> 2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for table
> or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
> MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID '5',
> database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface
> that
> was marshalled for a different thread.).
> 2005-11-17 11:16:16.30 spid12s The full-text catalog health monitor
> reported a failure for full-text catalog "FTC_MYCatName" (5) in database
> "IMS" (6). Reason code: 0. Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an
> interface that was marshalled for a different thread.). The system will
> restart any in-progress population from the previous checkpoint. If this
> message occurs frequently, consult SQL Server Books Online for
> troubleshooting assistance. This is an informational message only. No user
> action is required.
> 2005-11-17 11:22:16.86 spid13s Informational: Reinitialized full-text
> Full population for table or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' (table
> or
> indexed view ID '1253579504', database ID '6') after a temporary failure.
> Prior to error, the number of documents processed: 60800, errors
> encountered:
> 0.
> "Simon" wrote:
|||Hilary,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with the cause. However the FT Monitor
process is a system process not something I have put in place!!
I don't what it is or what it does but I can't do anything to stop it. Do
you know what this process is?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Sounds like Monitor is locking with the population process. The population
> does put locks on the rows and table it is indexing to preserve
> transactional consistency.
> It looks like you have to do a less invasive form of monitoring.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3B782A40-FF11-4694-B21A-0EFFBA0F5F02@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Is anyone able to help on this?
In short I'm trying to resolve this error:
2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for
table
or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID
'5',
database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface
that
was marshalled for a different thread.).
Which occurs when I populate my catalogue.
Thanks
Simon
I have a clustered 2005 server (build 9.00.1399.06). On the server I have 3
FT catalogues.
When I created the first catalogue everything was fine. The catalogue built
fine and returns results correctly (sooo much quicker than 2000!). Then I
tried to do a full re-population.
The full text service appeared to hang and never re-populate the catalogue.
From various bits of testing I have found this:
Using sp_who and sp_lock I can see that the Gatherer spid is blocked by the
FT Monitor spid. The Gatherer has await resource of MD 24(7:0:0) which the
monitor has Sch-S lock on. Being a system process I cannot kill it. During
this time I cannot access the Full text screen in Man Studio (blocked again),
but I can query other catalogues.
When it appears to hang as above I tried stopping the FT service in cluster
admin. The process would not stop. I have to kill it using task manager.
After a restart of just the full text service I cannot access the FT
catalogue screen, though strangley I can't see any blocking. The catalogue
appears not to be rebuilt. I can query other catalogues fine. I cannot see
any blocking of gatherer (I can't see it in sp_who), or any other blocking
spids for that matter.
Last resort I restart the Full text service and SQL Service. Upon restarting
the catalogue starts repopulating straight away. I can access it in Man
Studio, it completes fine and everything is good. Until I try to start a full
population again. (BTW I've tried incremental and rebuilding - same as above
happens).
So in other words I have to restart the SQL service everytime I want to
re-populate my FT catalogue.
I'm hoping someone can help me. Any form of suggestion welcomed!
Thanks
I just found out that FT keeps a log. Here is part of todays output (it is
repeated several times):
2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for table
or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID '5',
database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface that
was marshalled for a different thread.).
2005-11-17 11:16:16.30 spid12s The full-text catalog health monitor
reported a failure for full-text catalog "FTC_MYCatName" (5) in database
"IMS" (6). Reason code: 0. Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an
interface that was marshalled for a different thread.). The system will
restart any in-progress population from the previous checkpoint. If this
message occurs frequently, consult SQL Server Books Online for
troubleshooting assistance. This is an informational message only. No user
action is required.
2005-11-17 11:22:16.86 spid13s Informational: Reinitialized full-text
Full population for table or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' (table or
indexed view ID '1253579504', database ID '6') after a temporary failure.
Prior to error, the number of documents processed: 60800, errors encountered:
0.
"Simon" wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a clustered 2005 server (build 9.00.1399.06). On the server I have 3
> FT catalogues.
> When I created the first catalogue everything was fine. The catalogue built
> fine and returns results correctly (sooo much quicker than 2000!). Then I
> tried to do a full re-population.
> The full text service appeared to hang and never re-populate the catalogue.
> From various bits of testing I have found this:
> Using sp_who and sp_lock I can see that the Gatherer spid is blocked by the
> FT Monitor spid. The Gatherer has await resource of MD 24(7:0:0) which the
> monitor has Sch-S lock on. Being a system process I cannot kill it. During
> this time I cannot access the Full text screen in Man Studio (blocked again),
> but I can query other catalogues.
> When it appears to hang as above I tried stopping the FT service in cluster
> admin. The process would not stop. I have to kill it using task manager.
> After a restart of just the full text service I cannot access the FT
> catalogue screen, though strangley I can't see any blocking. The catalogue
> appears not to be rebuilt. I can query other catalogues fine. I cannot see
> any blocking of gatherer (I can't see it in sp_who), or any other blocking
> spids for that matter.
> Last resort I restart the Full text service and SQL Service. Upon restarting
> the catalogue starts repopulating straight away. I can access it in Man
> Studio, it completes fine and everything is good. Until I try to start a full
> population again. (BTW I've tried incremental and rebuilding - same as above
> happens).
> So in other words I have to restart the SQL service everytime I want to
> re-populate my FT catalogue.
> I'm hoping someone can help me. Any form of suggestion welcomed!
> Thanks
>
>
|||Sounds like Monitor is locking with the population process. The population
does put locks on the rows and table it is indexing to preserve
transactional consistency.
It looks like you have to do a less invasive form of monitoring.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B782A40-FF11-4694-B21A-0EFFBA0F5F02@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I just found out that FT keeps a log. Here is part of todays output (it is
> repeated several times):
> 2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for table
> or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
> MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID '5',
> database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface
> that
> was marshalled for a different thread.).
> 2005-11-17 11:16:16.30 spid12s The full-text catalog health monitor
> reported a failure for full-text catalog "FTC_MYCatName" (5) in database
> "IMS" (6). Reason code: 0. Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an
> interface that was marshalled for a different thread.). The system will
> restart any in-progress population from the previous checkpoint. If this
> message occurs frequently, consult SQL Server Books Online for
> troubleshooting assistance. This is an informational message only. No user
> action is required.
> 2005-11-17 11:22:16.86 spid13s Informational: Reinitialized full-text
> Full population for table or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' (table
> or
> indexed view ID '1253579504', database ID '6') after a temporary failure.
> Prior to error, the number of documents processed: 60800, errors
> encountered:
> 0.
> "Simon" wrote:
|||Hilary,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with the cause. However the FT Monitor
process is a system process not something I have put in place!!
I don't what it is or what it does but I can't do anything to stop it. Do
you know what this process is?
Thanks
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Sounds like Monitor is locking with the population process. The population
> does put locks on the rows and table it is indexing to preserve
> transactional consistency.
> It looks like you have to do a less invasive form of monitoring.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Simon" <Simon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3B782A40-FF11-4694-B21A-0EFFBA0F5F02@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Is anyone able to help on this?
In short I'm trying to resolve this error:
2005-11-17 11:16:06.30 spid13s Warning: Full-text population for
table
or indexed view '[IMS].[dbo].[MyTable]' failed to send batch of data to
MSFTESQL service (table or indexed view ID '1253579504', catalog ID
'5',
database ID '6'). Error: 0x8001010e(The application called an interface
that
was marshalled for a different thread.).
Which occurs when I populate my catalogue.
Thanks
Simon
2005 features not working
I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
> upgraded the client tools?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||So do I need to create a new dbase out of management studio, so would this
work out of management studio query window,
using '<computer name>\<mssql 2005>'.
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
> If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
> 2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
> using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A
|||Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
SQL Server Active Directory Helper
SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Browser
SQL Server Integration Services
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server VSS Writer
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> That could still only be the client tools.
> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
> Server", or both?
> A
>
>
|||Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
option.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
> service name):
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will present
> the long name.)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi I installed the SQL Svr Developer Edtn 2005 disk and have the following
selections for installation/repair
SQL Server Database Services
Analysis Services
Reporting Services
Notification Services
Integration Services
Workstation Components, Books online and Development tools.
Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>
> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>
> That would be my guess as well.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>
>
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
> upgraded the client tools?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||So do I need to create a new dbase out of management studio, so would this
work out of management studio query window,
using '<computer name>\<mssql 2005>'.
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
> If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
> 2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
> using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A
|||Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
SQL Server Active Directory Helper
SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Browser
SQL Server Integration Services
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server VSS Writer
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> That could still only be the client tools.
> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
> Server", or both?
> A
>
>
|||Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
option.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
> service name):
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will present
> the long name.)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi I installed the SQL Svr Developer Edtn 2005 disk and have the following
selections for installation/repair
SQL Server Database Services
Analysis Services
Reporting Services
Notification Services
Integration Services
Workstation Components, Books online and Development tools.
Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>
> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>
> That would be my guess as well.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>
>
2005 features not working
I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> > installed.
> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> > full features?
> > thanks.
> > --
> > Paul G
> > Software engineer.
>
>|||> Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running?
It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
upgraded the client tools?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
>> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
>> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
>> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> > installed.
>> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
>> > full features?
>> > thanks.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>>|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a
>> 2000
>> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with
>> >management
>> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem
>> > to
>> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> > installed.
>> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate
>> > with
>> > full features?
>> > thanks.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>>|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A|||What services (related to SQL Server) do you have. There is no doubt that you did connect to an SQL
Server 2000 instance. So either you only upgraded/installed the client tools, or you installed a new
instance but you still connect to the 2000 instance.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1DFFDACB-423B-453C-A4C0-D2CA872B698C@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Also I noticed on the status
>> > bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
>> > not the full feature version running?
>> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
>> upgraded the client tools?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>> > for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
>> > object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
>> > create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
>> > solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
>> > bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
>> > not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
>> > compatable mode?
>> > thanks
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> >> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> >> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
>> >> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
>> >> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
>> >> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> >> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> >> > installed.
>> >> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
>> >> > full features?
>> >> > thanks.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
service name):
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
(In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will present
the long name.)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
> SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Browser
> SQL Server Integration Services
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server VSS Writer
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> That could still only be the client tools.
>> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> Server", or both?
>> A
>>|||> Do you know if I can install the
> 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> several jobs scheduled?
Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>If so not sure why
> it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> option.
That would be my guess as well.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
> Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
> 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
> it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> option.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> service name):
>> MSSQLSERVER
>> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> present
>> the long name.)
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> > SQL Server Browser
>> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> > MSSQLSERVER
>> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >>
>> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >>
>> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> Server", or both?
>> >>
>> >> A
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||> Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
> if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
Yes, this is the database engine.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ED5DEB6-8FDA-4E00-B814-EFEB0D4BBFDC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi I installed the SQL Svr Developer Edtn 2005 disk and have the following
> selections for installation/repair
> SQL Server Database Services
> Analysis Services
> Reporting Services
> Notification Services
> Integration Services
> Workstation Components, Books online and Development tools.
> Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
> if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled?
>> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>>
>> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
>> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>>
>> >If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> That would be my guess as well.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> >> service name):
>> >>
>> >> MSSQLSERVER
>> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >>
>> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> >> present
>> >> the long name.)
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server Browser
>> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> >> > MSSQLSERVER
>> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> >> Server", or both?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the message
below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since this
is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
and run on the same machine?
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support,
see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software
Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books
Online.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > Do you know if I can install the
> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> > several jobs scheduled?
> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>
> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>
> >If so not sure why
> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> > option.
> That would be my guess as well.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> > option.
> > --
> > Paul G
> > Software engineer.
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> >
> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
> >> service name):
> >>
> >> MSSQLSERVER
> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
> >>
> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
> >> present
> >> the long name.)
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> >> > SQL Server Browser
> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
> >> > MSSQLSERVER
> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Paul G
> >> > Software engineer.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> >> >>
> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
> >> >> Server", or both?
> >> >>
> >> >> A
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||> Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the
> message
> below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since
> this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
An upgrade will replace SQL Server 2000. Of you want to keep both, then
DON'T RUN AN UPGRADE.
A|||thanks for the information. We have several SQL 2000 licenses not being used
so guess I could install virtual pc on the machine and then install SQL2000
followed by SQL2005.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the
> > message
> > below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since
> > this
> > is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> > and run on the same machine?
> An upgrade will replace SQL Server 2000. Of you want to keep both, then
> DON'T RUN AN UPGRADE.
> A
>
>|||> Also since this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
If you specify the same instance as your 2000 instance, it will upgrade. If you specify a new
instance name, it will leave the 2000 instance alone.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5BAC66BC-D95B-4B8F-985F-94F18D19A115@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the message
> below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
> Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2000
> Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support,
> see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software
> Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books
> Online.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled?
>> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>>
>> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
>> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>>
>> >If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> That would be my guess as well.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> >> service name):
>> >>
>> >> MSSQLSERVER
>> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >>
>> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> >> present
>> >> the long name.)
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server Browser
>> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> >> > MSSQLSERVER
>> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> >> Server", or both?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> > installed.
> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> > full features?
> > thanks.
> > --
> > Paul G
> > Software engineer.
>
>|||> Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running?
It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
upgraded the client tools?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
>> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
>> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
>> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> > installed.
>> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
>> > full features?
>> > thanks.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>>|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a
>> 2000
>> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with
>> >management
>> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem
>> > to
>> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> > installed.
>> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate
>> > with
>> > full features?
>> > thanks.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>>|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A|||What services (related to SQL Server) do you have. There is no doubt that you did connect to an SQL
Server 2000 instance. So either you only upgraded/installed the client tools, or you installed a new
instance but you still connect to the 2000 instance.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1DFFDACB-423B-453C-A4C0-D2CA872B698C@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Also I noticed on the status
>> > bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
>> > not the full feature version running?
>> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000. Perhaps you only
>> upgraded the client tools?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>> > for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
>> > object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
>> > create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
>> > solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
>> > bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
>> > not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
>> > compatable mode?
>> > thanks
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> >
>> >> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
>> >> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
>> >> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
>> >> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
>> >> > studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
>> >> > have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
>> >> > operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
>> >> > installed.
>> >> > Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
>> >> > full features?
>> >> > thanks.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
service name):
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
(In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will present
the long name.)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
> SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Browser
> SQL Server Integration Services
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server VSS Writer
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> That could still only be the client tools.
>> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> Server", or both?
>> A
>>|||> Do you know if I can install the
> 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> several jobs scheduled?
Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>If so not sure why
> it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> option.
That would be my guess as well.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
> Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
> 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
> it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> option.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> service name):
>> MSSQLSERVER
>> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> present
>> the long name.)
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> > SQL Server Browser
>> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> > MSSQLSERVER
>> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >>
>> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >>
>> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> Server", or both?
>> >>
>> >> A
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||> Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
> if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
Yes, this is the database engine.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ED5DEB6-8FDA-4E00-B814-EFEB0D4BBFDC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi I installed the SQL Svr Developer Edtn 2005 disk and have the following
> selections for installation/repair
> SQL Server Database Services
> Analysis Services
> Reporting Services
> Notification Services
> Integration Services
> Workstation Components, Books online and Development tools.
> Anyhow I was expecting to see SQL Server components but did not, do you know
> if the SQL Server Database Services should install the database engine?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled?
>> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>>
>> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
>> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>>
>> >If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> That would be my guess as well.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> >> service name):
>> >>
>> >> MSSQLSERVER
>> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >>
>> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> >> present
>> >> the long name.)
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server Browser
>> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> >> > MSSQLSERVER
>> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> >> Server", or both?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the message
below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since this
is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
and run on the same machine?
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support,
see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software
Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books
Online.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > Do you know if I can install the
> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> > several jobs scheduled?
> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>
> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>
> >If so not sure why
> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> > option.
> That would be my guess as well.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
> > option.
> > --
> > Paul G
> > Software engineer.
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> >
> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
> >> service name):
> >>
> >> MSSQLSERVER
> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
> >>
> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
> >> present
> >> the long name.)
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> >> > SQL Server Browser
> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
> >> > MSSQLSERVER
> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Paul G
> >> > Software engineer.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> >> >>
> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
> >> >> Server", or both?
> >> >>
> >> >> A
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||> Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the
> message
> below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since
> this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
An upgrade will replace SQL Server 2000. Of you want to keep both, then
DON'T RUN AN UPGRADE.
A|||thanks for the information. We have several SQL 2000 licenses not being used
so guess I could install virtual pc on the machine and then install SQL2000
followed by SQL2005.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the
> > message
> > below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since
> > this
> > is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> > and run on the same machine?
> An upgrade will replace SQL Server 2000. Of you want to keep both, then
> DON'T RUN AN UPGRADE.
> A
>
>|||> Also since this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
If you specify the same instance as your 2000 instance, it will upgrade. If you specify a new
instance name, it will leave the 2000 instance alone.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5BAC66BC-D95B-4B8F-985F-94F18D19A115@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, looks like for some reason the upgrade was blocked as I found the message
> below during an installation attempt of the database engine. Also since this
> is an upgrade wondering if it will remove sql 2000 or allow both to reside
> and run on the same machine?
> Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2000
> Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support,
> see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software
> Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books
> Online.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> > Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled?
>> Yes. Install another SQL Server Database Engine instance. Each Database Engine comes with Agent.
>>
>> >Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance?
>> Yep. As per above, just install a new database engine instance.
>>
>> >If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> That would be my guess as well.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:43AF09FA-ED81-45F2-98F4-E25C64C70927@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi thanks for the additional information. Do you know if I can install the
>> > 2005 SQL Server agent without effecting the 2000 server agent as I have
>> > several jobs scheduled? Also looks like I do not have the database engine
>> > installed 2005 as you noted. Does this come with the SQL Server 2005
>> > Developer edition (guessing it does) and can it be installed along with the
>> > 2000 database engine without effecting the 2000 instance? If so not sure why
>> > it was not installed, guess I may have not selected the proper installation
>> > option.
>> > --
>> > Paul G
>> > Software engineer.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a lot of 2005 stuff
>> >> installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or 7.0 (based on the
>> >> service name):
>> >>
>> >> MSSQLSERVER
>> >> SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >>
>> >> (In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tools you use will
>> >> present
>> >> the long name.)
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control panel,
>> >> > SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
>> >> > SQL Server Active Directory Helper
>> >> > SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server Browser
>> >> > SQL Server Integration Services
>> >> > SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
>> >> > SQL Server VSS Writer
>> >> > MSSQLSERVER
>> >> > SQLSERVERAGENT
>> >> > I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
>> >> > just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
>> >> > installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
>> >> > addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Paul G
>> >> > Software engineer.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
>> >> >> > Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That could still only be the client tools.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
>> >> >> Server", or both?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
2005 features not working
I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running?
It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000
. Perhaps you only
upgraded the client tools?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a n
ew
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the statu
s
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 20
00. Perhaps you only
> upgraded the client tools?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>|||So do I need to create a new dbase out of management studio, so would this
work out of management studio query window,
using '<computer name>\<mssql 2005>'.
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
> If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
> 2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instance
s
> using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A|||What services (related to SQL Server) do you have. There is no doubt that yo
u did connect to an SQL
Server 2000 instance. So either you only upgraded/installed the client tools
, or you installed a new
instance but you still connect to the 2000 instance.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1DFFDACB-423B-453C-A4C0-D2CA872B698C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a
lot of 2005 stuff
installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or
7.0 (based on the
service name):
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
(In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tool
s you use will present
the long name.)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control pan
el,
> SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Browser
> SQL Server Integration Services
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server VSS Writer
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is installed.
Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
full features?
thanks.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
db it stays in 80 compat mode.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>I have both sql 2000 and sql2005 installed on a machine and with management
> studio it seems to show the databases created in 2000 but does not seem to
> have many of the new features of 2005. It seems as though it is not
> operating against a SQL Server 2005 installation although 2005 is
> installed.
> Just wondering if I would need to remove sql2000 for 2005 to operate with
> full features?
> thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions to
create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a new
solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the status
bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
compatable mode?
thanks
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What new features are you referring to that you expect to see that you
> don't? If you are talking about not being able to use some of the new
> features make sure your db in 90 compatibility mode. If you upgrade a 2000
> db it stays in 80 compat mode.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5275E28-3080-4D05-ABBC-D575D11C43B8@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Also I noticed on the status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running?
It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 2000
. Perhaps you only
upgraded the client tools?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a n
ew
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the statu
s
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instances
using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> for example in viewing databases I did not see a section for schema in the
> object explorer so could not add one. Also in following the instructions
> to
> create a cube, I could not because a cube folder was not present after a
> new
> solution was created in the project explorer. Also I noticed on the
> status
> bar it lists the computer name followed by (8.0 RTM), does this mean it is
> not the full feature version running? Also how do you switch it to the 90
> compatable mode?
> thanks
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> It means that the server (instance) you have connected to is SQL Server 20
00. Perhaps you only
> upgraded the client tools?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>|||So do I need to create a new dbase out of management studio, so would this
work out of management studio query window,
using '<computer name>\<mssql 2005>'.
thanks.
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> Also note that you can have only one default (server name only) instance.
> If your SQL 2000 instance is the default instance, then the installed SQL
> 2005 instance must be a named instance. You can connect to named instance
s
> using '<server name>\<instance name>'.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:57529330-1DD6-41F7-A6A1-6A38C416AFA1@.microsoft.com...
>|||> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
That could still only be the client tools.
Look at the services that are running. Is "MSSQLSERVER" listed, or "SQL
Server", or both?
A|||What services (related to SQL Server) do you have. There is no doubt that yo
u did connect to an SQL
Server 2000 instance. So either you only upgraded/installed the client tools
, or you installed a new
instance but you still connect to the 2000 instance.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1DFFDACB-423B-453C-A4C0-D2CA872B698C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the information, I looked at the programs installed it lists
> Microsoft SQL 2005 so think I have it installed.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||The services with the long names are 2005 services. So, it seems you have a
lot of 2005 stuff
installed, *except* the database engine (and Agent). I.e., below are 2000 or
7.0 (based on the
service name):
MSSQLSERVER
SQLSERVERAGENT
(In 2005, a service has both a long name and a short name. However, the tool
s you use will present
the long name.)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D2E27CD8-2D39-4E97-B954-8D9C9B64488B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi here is what I have listed in the services section from the control pan
el,
> SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)-probably should remove this
> SQL Server Active Directory Helper
> SQL Server Analysis Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Browser
> SQL Server Integration Services
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server VSS Writer
> MSSQLSERVER
> SQLSERVERAGENT
> I did not see a SQL Server by itself. Guess it does not specify the year
> just from the service listing. Does this look like only the client may be
> installed? Also I installed it off of the Visual Studio 2005 professional
> addition, disk labeled SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)