Database

vimal_yet5-Sep-07 23:24

vimal_yet

5-Sep-07 23:24

Is there Database in the new machine ...... if so check whether u gave the correct user name and password to the DB

If U Get Errors U Will Learn
If U Don't Get Errors U Have Learnt

Kissy165-Sep-07 23:28

Kissy16

5-Sep-07 23:28

thanks for responding to my post.
Yes the remote machine have the db and i have checked for all the parameters in the connection string which are correct.
<add key="connstring" value="Data Source=104.131.2.91;initial catalog=batch;uid=bt1;pwd=bt201;persist security info=false">

still i am unable to connect to the database.
i am using vs2003 and sqlserver 2000

kissy

John-ph5-Sep-07 23:29

John-ph

5-Sep-07 23:29

Kissy16 wrote:
"sql server does not exist or access denied"

Remote Server May be down or the Sql Server service may be stopped...

Regards
J O H N

"Even eagles need a push." David McNally

Re: Database connection problem for remote machine [modified]

Kissy165-Sep-07 23:54

Kissy16

5-Sep-07 23:54

wat abt this sqlserver service???
here sql server for remote machine is not down,i am sure for this.
can u plz give me some solution???
thanks for ur answer

kissy

Joe6-Sep-07 1:49

Joe

6-Sep-07 1:49

Kissy16 wrote:
tried both with IP address and machine name for data source

If you are facing connectivity issues after ensuring that the SqlServer service is started, probably you might want to take a look at the following factors

1) I've noticed that the datasource taking params like ipaddress/SqlServer2000 (read it as ipaddress slash sqlserver2000) or
machinename/SqlServer2000 (assuming that in both cases you are having SqlServer 2000)
2) If you are using SqlServer2000 and if you have tried the above mentioned option and still experiencing connectivity issues, probably resetting protocols using "sql server client network utility", try disabling and re-enabling TCP/IP and Named Pipes.

-- modified at 8:00 Thursday 6th September, 2007

Execute a stored procedure

John Gathogo5-Sep-07 22:18

John Gathogo

5-Sep-07 22:18

Suppose I have the following stored procedure

CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.GetContacts

AS

SELECT ContactID, ContactName FROM Contacts

GO

Then I can execute the stored procedure as follows:

EXEC dbo.GetContacts

How can I receive the returned results into a temporary or permanent table?

John-ph5-Sep-07 22:40

John-ph

5-Sep-07 22:40

John Gathogo wrote:
SELECT ContactID, ContactName FROM Contacts

John Gathogo wrote:
How can I receive the returned results into a temporary or permanent table?

Using Into Clause

Into Temporary Table
----------------------

SELECT ContactID, ContactName INTO #TempTable FROM Contacts
The above sql stmt will create a temporary table and Inserts the resulting rows from the query into it.

Into Permanent Table
----------------------

Insert Into PermanentTable(ContactID, ContactName)(SELECT ContactID, ContactName FROM Contacts)
this statement Inserts the resulting rows from the select query into permanent table provide both the tables should have the same definition.

Regards
J O H N

"Even eagles need a push." David McNally

John Gathogo5-Sep-07 22:59

John Gathogo

5-Sep-07 22:59

Actually what I meant is that I want to use the stored procedure to populate the table. I already found a way:

CREATE @TmpTable (ContactID INT, ContactName NVARCHAR(36))
INSERT INTO @TmpTable EXEC dbo.GetContacts
SELECT * FROM @TmpTable

Thanks all the same.

Frank Kerrigan5-Sep-07 22:51

Frank Kerrigan

5-Sep-07 22:51

<br />
CREATE TABLE #TEMP (ContactID int, ContactName varchar(50))<br />
<br />
INSERT #TEMP<br />
EXEC dbo.GetContacts<br />
<br />
SELECT * FROM #TEMP<br />
<br />

Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture)

http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]

Is datatable.update necessary

manuo57-Sep-07 0:05

manuo5

7-Sep-07 0:05

create Function [dbo].[MyFun] ()
Returns @tbl table (id int,Item varchar(100))
as
begin
insert into @tbl
SELECT ContactID, ContactName FROM Contacts

return
End

then use this

insert into temporary table/permanent table
select * from MyFun()

Manu

Glen Harvy5-Sep-07 21:45

5-Sep-07 21:45

Hi,

This is closely related to my previous question BUT ...

I go through a web log file and extract each line and put the data into a new row in a datatable.

I then change the data in one field of each row.

I then use that datatable as my source for extracting various statistics.

At no time do I really need to save the datatable to the underlying database as far as I can see.

If I don't need to save the datatable to the database, do I really need to do a datatable.update let alone a dataset.acceptchanges?

Glen Harvy

pmarfleet5-Sep-07 22:07

pmarfleet

5-Sep-07 22:07

If you only need to use the DataTable object as an in-memory repository for data, then you don't need to use these methods. They are used for synchronising the contents of the DataTable with an underlying database.

Paul

Glen Harvy5-Sep-07 22:26

5-Sep-07 22:26

Thanks for that - it's funny how I have never stopped to think about what I was doing until performance became an issue. Suppose this is often the case now that I think about it.

Just one thing more though...

Is there any need at all to call dataset.acceptchanges() if you have just done a datatable.update and you know there hasn't been any other changes to the datatset.

Logically the answer is no but I just want to confirm that.

Thanks for your time.

Glen Harvy

pmarfleet5-Sep-07 22:48

pmarfleet

5-Sep-07 22:48

I don't do this kind of stuff with DataTables very often, but according to the MSDN documentation...

When AcceptChanges is called, any DataRow object still in edit mode successfully ends its edits. The DataRowState also changes: all Added and Modified rows become Unchanged, and Deleted rows are removed.

So I think you should call AcceptChanges after Update to reset the status of the rows in your DataTable.

Paul

Glen Harvy5-Sep-07 23:20

datatable.update & dataset.acceptchanges

5-Sep-07 23:20

Yep - I agree with you.

Thanks.

Glen Harvy

Glen Harvy5-Sep-07 21:20