Disconnect Client Connection via T-SQL/Store Proce

Hi Gents,
If there are some client connections on the database and I would like to
detach the file, it's failed when execute the store proc "sp_detach_db". Any
SQL statement or Store Procedure on clearing/kicking out the current client
connections? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
CurtisLYou can use the KILL command.|||Moreover, using kill <id> with statusonly. So this way I can see the rollbac
k
progression out of danger.
"markc600@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> You can use the KILL command.
>

Disbling parameters pased in URL

Hi,
I'm passing in parameters via the URL. Is there a way to disable some
parameters so users can't change them once the report is displayed in the
browser and ready to run? I don't see it in 2000, but maybe it's in 2005
which I haven't purchased yet.
thanks,
-TrishHave you tried making the parameters hidden?
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"Trishmi" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm passing in parameters via the URL. Is there a way to disable some
> parameters so users can't change them once the report is displayed in the
> browser and ready to run? I don't see it in 2000, but maybe it's in 2005
> which I haven't purchased yet.
> thanks,
> -Trish|||I'm not sure how to make the parameters hidden on the report viewer once the
report is launched.
Here is how I'm launching my report from a .aspx file:
<FORM id="frmRender"
action="http://myreporserver/reportserver?<%=Request("RPT")%>" method="post">
<INPUT type="hidden" name="rs:Command" value="Render">
<INPUT type="hidden" name="rc:LinkTarget" value="main">
<INPUT type="hidden" name="rs:Format" value="HTML4.0">
<input type="hidden" name="db" value=<%=Session("HostDB")%>>
<input type="hidden" name="Company" value=<%=Session("CompanyName")%>>
</FORM>
Once it launches, the DB and Company parameters show in the toolbar. I'd
like to disable those. I can't hide the whole toolbar because there will be
parameters that require the user to select from a dropdownlistbox.
thanks,
-Trish
"Wayne Snyder" wrote:
> Have you tried making the parameters hidden?
> --
> Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
> community of SQL Professionals.
>
> "Trishmi" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm passing in parameters via the URL. Is there a way to disable some
> > parameters so users can't change them once the report is displayed in the
> > browser and ready to run? I don't see it in 2000, but maybe it's in 2005
> > which I haven't purchased yet.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Trish

Disaster Recovery - Failing over and back - Losing publications

Hello,
I am wondering what I am doing wrong or if what I am seeing is normal
behavior.
I have manual log shipping in place (via SQL LiteSpeed).
We have a replicated database log shipped to a DR server in another
location. When I fail over to the DR site, I can still see the publications
on both sites (however the DR site is not set up for replication). When I
fail back to the main site, I lose replication for the database and all of
my agents fail upon restarting them.
Has anyone run into this and come up with a solution?
We have to fail over to the DR site next weekend for building maintenance
and I don't want to have to rebuild replication.
Thanks so much.
~lb
You might want to restore your databases with the keep replication switch.
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
"Lonnye Blake Bower" <lbower@.excellerx.com> wrote in message
news:eZclO86MFHA.4092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am wondering what I am doing wrong or if what I am seeing is normal
> behavior.
> I have manual log shipping in place (via SQL LiteSpeed).
> We have a replicated database log shipped to a DR server in another
> location. When I fail over to the DR site, I can still see the
publications
> on both sites (however the DR site is not set up for replication). When I
> fail back to the main site, I lose replication for the database and all of
> my agents fail upon restarting them.
> Has anyone run into this and come up with a solution?
> We have to fail over to the DR site next weekend for building maintenance
> and I don't want to have to rebuild replication.
> Thanks so much.
> ~lb
>

Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Disabling the AUTOCOMMIT option in MSSQLServer

Hello,

Is there anyway.. we can disable AUTOCOMMIT option in MSSQL server
while executing the SQL queries via SQL ANALYZERbegin transaction|||On 8 Jun 2006 08:01:15 -0700, Uncle Sam wrote:

>Hello,
>Is there anyway.. we can disable AUTOCOMMIT option in MSSQL server
>while executing the SQL queries via SQL ANALYZER

Hi Sam,

In Query Analyzer (for SQL Server 2000): Tools / Options / Connection
Properties / Set implicit_transactions to ON. This affects only new
connections.
Also in Query Analyzer: Query / Current coonnection pproperties / Set
implicit_transactions ON to affect the current connection.

In SQL Server Management Studio (for SQL Server 2005): Tools / Options /
Query Execution / SQL Server / ANSI / SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON (for
new connections), and Query / Query Options / Execution / ANSI / SET
IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON (for the current connection).

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

Disable updates via triggers - how?

Hi,
We use push transactional replication successfully and are about to bring a
few remote on-sites into the fold. The connection speed will be low - in the
64k/128k range. As I understand it "Not for replication" means that a trigger
on the subcriber will not fire if the update is generated via a replication
process, i.e. all updates are pushed from the publisher. If this is correct
is there any way to reverse the logic, i.e. don't replicate updates on the
publisher that are caused by triggers and assume the subscriber will have the
appropriate triggers in place to do the update.
We are interested in doing this to reduce the amount of network bandwidth
consummed be replication (this will be critical when the remote sites come
on-line).
Can this be done?
Cheers, Peter
The not for replication switch means that replication related activity
will not cause the trigger, constraint, identity property to be enforced
if the triggering activity occurs by a replication process. This could
happen on the publisher or subscriber.
There is a way to bypass the replication process. What you do is add
filters to your tables which look like this
select * from published tables where 1=1.
A filter proc will be created which the log reader agent uses when
figuring out what commands are to be written to the distribution agent.
Change this filter to always return 0 when you want the commands to be
ignored. Change it back to 1 when you want the commands to be processed.
The problem is you can't alter procs via a trigger.
The way I handle things like this is to build the logic into the
replication proc that applies these transactions on the subscriber(s).
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
|||Hi Hillary,
Thanks for the response.
Where do I go to add the filter: "select * from published tables where 1=1."?
When and where would I change the filter?
I do have a copy of your fine book - what sections are relevent to this
particular issue.
I presume the following isn't relevent to my circumstance as what I'm trying
to do reduce network traffice. Or I have I misunderstood?

> The way I handle things like this is to build the logic into the
> replication proc that applies these transactions on the subscriber(s).
Cheers, Peter
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> The not for replication switch means that replication related activity
> will not cause the trigger, constraint, identity property to be enforced
> if the triggering activity occurs by a replication process. This could
> happen on the publisher or subscriber.
> There is a way to bypass the replication process. What you do is add
> filters to your tables which look like this
>
> A filter proc will be created which the log reader agent uses when
> figuring out what commands are to be written to the distribution agent.
> Change this filter to always return 0 when you want the commands to be
> ignored. Change it back to 1 when you want the commands to be processed.
> The problem is you can't alter procs via a trigger.
> The way I handle things like this is to build the logic into the
> replication proc that applies these transactions on the subscriber(s).
> --
> 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
>
|||You are correct, making these change to the replication procs used to
synchronize your data will not minimize network traffic. Replicating the
execution of stored procedures will, if the majority of your transactions
occurring on the publisher affect more than one row.
Have a look at this post for an example of how to make the log reader agent
bypass transactions.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c?dmode=source
"Peter Jones" <PeterJones@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87E55BFF-BCB2-4C20-B5F5-9C48B3B8064D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Hillary,
> Thanks for the response.
> Where do I go to add the filter: "select * from published tables where
> 1=1."?
> When and where would I change the filter?
> I do have a copy of your fine book - what sections are relevent to this
> particular issue.
> I presume the following isn't relevent to my circumstance as what I'm
> trying
> to do reduce network traffice. Or I have I misunderstood?
>
> Cheers, Peter
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:

DISABLE TRIGGER

How can i disable a trigger'
Any suggestion appreciated.
Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.comHi
-- to diable all
EXEC sp_MSForEachTable N'ALTER TABLE ? DISABLE TRIGGER ALL'
GO
-- to enable all
EXEC sp_MSForEachTable N'ALTER TABLE ? ENABLE TRIGGER ALL'
Note : sp_MSForEachTable is undocumented ans unsupported
"akej via webservertalk.com" <forum@.nospam.webservertalk.com> wrote in message
news:06352efd0e4e43029b575e79a35d51ca@.SQ
webservertalk.com...
> How can i disable a trigger'
> Any suggestion appreciated.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com|||So maybe better to drop(disable) and afete create(enable)
Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com|||No, no need to drop and recreate. Simply use
ALTER TABLE table_name DISABLE TRIGGER trigger_name
Replace names as appropriate. Also, to disable all triggers, as Uri already
suggested, replace trigger_name with ALL keyword.
To enable the trigger again, replace DISABLE with ENABLE.
Regards,
Raj|||What about to disable/enable constraint, foreign key constraint '
Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com

disable the service manager

Is there anyway I can disable the service manager from running. I have a
sql server that several users connect to via terminal services and they all
get the service manager in the system tray. I want to remove this but don't
know how.It's probably in the Startup group for the Default User. Simply remove it's
shortcut from Startup
--
HTH
Ryan Waight, MCDBA, MCSE
"sarah" <sarahkingswell@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OgtXgxBjDHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is there anyway I can disable the service manager from running. I have a
> sql server that several users connect to via terminal services and they
all
> get the service manager in the system tray. I want to remove this but
don't
> know how.
>