|
Hello,
I make a Database in SQL SERVER which has 9 tables. I want to copy that database to another computer, how can i do this.
kindly tell me the procedures, so that i can transfer database to another computer, along with its inserted data
EsHbAn BaHaDuR
EsHbAn BaHaDuR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I'm using some DevExpress components in C#. Using sqlConnection, sqlDataAdapter, dataSet, gridControl (a Datagrid) and controlNavigator (to choose insert record, edit record etc.).
When I make my program I can see all the data in the table. Using the controlNavigator I can add records, delete them etc.
I use Microsoft SQL server 2000.
I understand that my program loads a local copy of the database and at the end I have to let the program know that the real table now needs to be updated.
I made a button under which I can test some commands.
I tried sqlDataAdapter1.Update(dataset11) and sqlDataAdapter1.Update(DataSet11,"films") (where films is the name of the table) also I tried dataSet11.acceptchanges().
No matter what I try each time when I quit the program and restart the program my table is empty.
What do I need to do to effectivly change/update the real table??
I would like a solution where I can input/change data in the datagrid using the controlNavigator and then by adding somewhere some extra code make the changes permanent.
I hope someone can help
Kind regards,
Clem
|
|
|
|
|
I am new to ADO, and Can I have a sample link to understand the need and purpose of ADO events with an example? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.support.microsoft.com/ph/6349
|
|
|
|
|
I am also want to know thx!
|
|
|
|
|
How can I Insepct / analyze the contents of a given *.ldf transaction log file?
The demand is for an analysis / inspection which is independent from any
database connection. Therefore - DBCC LOG and alike are not applicable.
In short - what is the internal structure of the transaction log?
How can one access thier contents?
Thanx
Hillel
|
|
|
|
|
The internal structure of the transaction log is officially undocumented. You won't be able to open it while the database is running. SQL Server uses the transaction log to record operations that will be performed before making the appropriate changes to the data pages; this allows transactions to be either recovered in full or rolled back in full if recovery is required.
You can find some information in Inside SQL Server 2000.
If you want to audit access to your database, I suggest reading SQL Server 2000 Auditing[^].
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
using(OleDbConnection _Connection = new OleDbConnection("Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Extended Properties=dBASE IV;User ID=;Password=;Data Source=c:\\CT"))
{
_Connection.Open();
_Connection.Close();
}
The 3 lines code above is causing me to lose Handles (on the Task Manager). So that my resource (the Handles) is not being released.
Code executes properly if I have no BDE (Borland Database Engine) installed on my machine. But I cannot live without BDE since it is needed by other applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you need to talk to Borland...
Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed.
Carl Sandburg
|
|
|
|
|
why is it important to use views in sql using transact tsql language
aaffi
|
|
|
|
|
Depends what you're using it for. I find it interesting that your last post was missing a "r" and your handle or ID would be freeha (meaning we're not free) if you added a "r". Are you a communist?
Edit *** Ooops you were missing an "m". Maybe your programming an online card game?
"People who never make mistakes, never do anything."
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't important to use a view unless your situation calls for it.
One use of VIEWs is to restrict access to data. For example, I normally lock out all the tables from all the users so that no one gets direct access to the tables. If they want to see the data they need to go to a view or use a stored procedure.
The way security works in SQL Server means that you can "revoke" permission on a table (or any object) to a specific user or role. However, if that object is accessed by something they do have access to (like a VIEW or PROCEDURE) then the user can use the data as much as they object they do have access to permits.
For instance, you could set up a view to hide columns from a table so that a specific user (or group of users) cannot see that data. Or you might perform a common join in the view so that commonly run queries are easier.
Does this help?
Cada uno es artifice de su ventura
WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
|
|
|
|
|
Angus, is it true using view is faster?
<italic>Work hard, Work effectively and a bit of luck is the key to success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF EXISTS (SELECT TABLE_NAME
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.VIEWS
WHERE TABLE_NAME ='vwsociety_groups_balances')
DROP VIEW vwsociety_groups_balances
GO
CREATE VIEW vwsociety_groups_balances with schemabinding
AS
select society_group_id,bank_balance,
(select count(*) fro dbo.players
where society_group=society_group_id) as no_of_players
from dbo.society_groups
go
aaffi
|
|
|
|
|
You have fro instead of from in your subquery.
"People who never make mistakes, never do anything."
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm new to SQL and trying to understand what is most likely a simple question.
I'm trying to use UNION to pull together a result set of Name and Employee Number. Unfortunately there are duplicates in the two tables. The UNION syntax is supposed to weed out duplicates, but I have this situation.
First Name Last Name ID
TOM JONES 1111
TOM L JONES 1111
The code below shows what I have. The UNION evidentally looks at all the fields you bring back with the select. I need it to UNION only on the EmpID, but also have the name in the result list. I don't care which table it pulls the name, because either way, the name should be basically alike.
SELECT LastName,FirstName,EmpNo AS EmpID
FROM table1
WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL
UNION
SELECT LastName, FirstName, SocSecNo AS EmpID
FROM table2
ORDER BY LastName ASC,FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
Any suggestions how to UNION the information while eliminating duplicates based on EmpID only? Any help is appreciated!! 
Lost in the vast sea of .NET
|
|
|
|
|
SELECT LastName,FirstName,EmpNo AS EmpID
FROM table1
WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL and
EmpID not in (select empID from table2)
UNION
SELECT LastName, FirstName, SocSecNo AS EmpID
FROM table2
where EmpID not in (select empID from table1 where EmpTermDate IS NULL)
ORDER BY LastName ASC,FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
"People who never make mistakes, never do anything."
|
|
|
|
|
UNION is used to combine results from two or more selects. You cannot use it to remove duplicates (although if you specify SELECT DISTINCT it will remove duplicate records).
From your example it seems that you want to show all employees from both tables, but only one distinct employee name for each EmpID.
You may want to use one table as the primary table (to get only one name) and get the rest of the employees from the secondary table.
Here's how you can return all employees from both tables:
SELECT LastName, FirstName, EmpNo AS EmpID
FROM table1
WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL
UNION
SELECT LastName, FirstName, SocSecNo AS EmpID
FROM table2
<code>AND SocSecNo NOT IN (SELECT EmpNo FROM table1)</code>
ORDER BY LastName ASC, FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
If both tables contain the same number of employee id's (i.e. they all match), then you can use INNER JOIN and get the name from one table only.
SELECT table1.LastName, table1.FirstName, EmpNo
FROM table1
INNER JOIN table2 ON table1.EmpNo = table2.SocSecNo
WHERE table1.EmpTermDate IS NULL
ORDER BY LastName ASC, FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
There are other ways to return just one name from both tables, but this one works and it returns all employees from both tables.
Hope it helps 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I’ve posted my question on two message boards and received several suggestions. First of all Thanks for all your feedback and help!!
Below are the two approaches that I’ve received and I’ve tweaked them to get the result set I was looking for. Table one includes everyone on our payroll including terminated employees. Table two is our health insurance table which includes retirees. The emp number will match especially with the retirees. The problem also comes into play when you have retirees come back to work on a contractual basis. Somedays I wish they would just go golfing. 
Hopefully my explanation above helps in understanding the data I’m trying to select. Both of the selects below work where we include all the active folks on our payroll (table1), plus all the active health insurance participants (table2). Both code snipplets also weed out the duplicate Retirees and only list them once.
I now have the question; Is one section of code using a stored procedure is more efficient than the other? I’ve tested both selects in my VB.NET project and the second code snipplet is about 50 milliseconds faster. My record count is 1578. Even if the second code snipplet is faster, is it more efficient to use the join? Nobody will really notice 50 milliseconds, so I want to go with the code that will take the least amount of resources from SQL. I used Query analyzer to perform an Estimated Execution Plan and didn’t notice any real differences. Of course I’m new to this, and not sure what I’m looking at.
Any suggestions or feedback is appreciated!! Again, thanks for the great feedback you’ve already given!!
SELECT [table1].LastName, [table1].FirstName, [table1].EmpNo AS EmpID
FROM table1
WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL
UNION
SELECT [table2].LastName, [table2].FirstName, [table2].SocSecNo AS EmpID
FROM table2
LEFT JOIN [table1] ON [table2].SocSecNo = [table1].EmpNo
WHERE [table1].EmpNo IS NULL
OR
([table1].EmpNo IS NOT NULL
AND
[table1].EmpTermDate IS NOT NULL)
ORDER BY LastName ASC, FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
SELECT LastName,FirstName,EmpNo AS EmpID
FROM table1
WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL
UNION
SELECT LastName, FirstName, SocSecNo AS EmpID
FROM table2
WHERE SocSecNo NOT IN (SELECT EmpNo FROM table1 WHERE EmpTermDate IS NULL)
ORDER BY LastName ASC,FirstName ASC, EmpID ASC
Lost in the vast sea of .NETNET
|
|
|
|
|
The second statement is definitely faster as you have a shorter WHERE condition compared to the first one.
You should first choose whichever is logically correct, and if both are correct, then choose the simplest one.
BTW, from what I see your first statement can be replaced with the second, as it does the same thing anyway.
First statement: select table1 excluding retiree UNION select table2 where records not in table1 or records are retiree.
Second statement: select table1 excluding retiree UNION select table2 where records not in table1 (which includes retiree).
Hope that helps,
Edbert
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to go with the second statement. It is logically correct and I believe more readable and it is faster.
I can't take out the first part of the select. Table 1 is our payroll table which has 4158 records with around 1400 active employees. Table 2 contains our retirees, COBRA participants and 2 agencies who have health insurance, but are not on our payroll. Table 2 has 606 records. 9 of the records on table 2 are retirees who have come back as active contractual employees. If I just use the second portion of the select statment, the result list is 597 which contains all the health insurance records with the exception of the 9 duplicates. The first portion of the select pulls back all the active employees including the 9 retirees who should be golfing, but their working contractually.
With everyone's feedback, I believe I have a good piece of code for this lookup. I took a SQL course about a year and a half ago, and now I'm finally getting into my first ADO project. Thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate everyone's help. 
Lost in the vast sea of .NET
<a href="http://www.komputing.com/Pricelist.html">Visit my website at www.komputing.com</a>
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All
I have already checked the answers in discussions to find a solution for my problem but I could not..
I am using Trancation Replication for my customer. There is one server (Publish) in a city and 5 more Subscription in different citys. We are only replicating one Table, that is called "Adresse"
So far I got 2 kind of problems.
1.One of them subscriptions being "inactive".
2.the other one is that some of the subscriptions have connection problem with Publisher DB.
For the Problem 1, if there is no transaction occurs within "14 days(default value)" between publishing server and subscription servers, becoming Subscriptions inactive. I changed this value as "never expired" but I am not sure it is a good idea. As I read, Distribution DB is growing. But only one Table is it a problem?
The 2. Problem that I yesterday had is connection Problem. 3 of subscriptions was working fine but 2 of them were not available.
The error messages are at replication monitor like this for these 2 server.
"The agent is suspect.No Response within last 10 minutes"
I know that is only a information messages.
But in subcription side, the error was;
"The Process could not connect to Distributor 'Server1' "
The customers Network is really bad and they are living disconnections very often.
Then, in replication monitor screen, I made right click to subcriptions which are not running and clicked "Start synchronizing".
After that, the transactions are made and the situations of these 2 subscriptions became normal and active.
Regarding this problem, if there is a network problem in Subcriptions, how can replication (synchronizing) start automatically, after the network is up again.
Because, its not good, everytime connecting to Customer server and start synchronizing. Could it be made with and stored procedures or with a Job, script??
Thanks alot in advance...
Tolga
Tolga YARAMIS
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
