Analysis Services

How can you process multiple Analysis Services databases against the same SQL Server database without receiving table locks and the processing fails.How about one by one database using some program? There is a command line tool available to execute XML/A requests.|||

Dear,

We can create a DTS Package that will process all the Analysis Databases one by one.

HTH

from

sufian

Analysis Service: how can I process cubes?

how can I process and update cubes automaticly every night ?
ThanksThere is a task in DTS for processign cubes and other Analysis Services tasks. Create a package and just schedule it

Analysis Manager Remote Access

Hi,

I juste begin using Analysis Manager.

I want to know if i can create, process and manage cubes in a distant server.

I have the connection to the database on a distant server and i want to use Analysis Manager (installed on the server) from my PC (which have Anaylisi Manager Too).

I have just build a cube on my Analysis Manager with the server database but the cube does not appears on the Analysis Manager of the distant server.

Please help me, ;)

Thanks

moustachuAnalysis Services is in its second revision from Microsoft. It has a little while to go before it matures.

You can remotely administer an Analysis Services machine, but you need to have all of the datasources available on the remote machine with access to the data. Apparently the MMC application needs to get all metadata/dimension data for itself, rather than rely on the Analysis Services service to serve it up (ok, all together 5 times fast).

Good luck with it. I am hoping that AS makes many changes in the next revision.|||I thank you for your answer,

All the datasources are on the remote machine. But I do not Know How I can remotly administer an Analysis Services machine ?

moustachu

Originally posted by MCrowley
Analysis Services is in its second revision from Microsoft. It has a little while to go before it matures.

You can remotely administer an Analysis Services machine, but you need to have all of the datasources available on the remote machine with access to the data. Apparently the MMC application needs to get all metadata/dimension data for itself, rather than rely on the Analysis Services service to serve it up (ok, all together 5 times fast).

Good luck with it. I am hoping that AS makes many changes in the next revision.sql

Analysis manager cube processing error

I am trying to process a cube and during processing I get a message that " Data source provider error :[Microsoft][ODBC Driver Manager] Data source name not found and no default driver specified..." I set up my data connections and everything else as it appeared in the tutorial. I am running XP Professional and MS Server 2000.To validate your connection create a file on your desktop with UDL extension. Double-click on it and fill in the blanks. Once done, - rename the file to .TXT and open it in notepad. Modify as needed and use it.|||I did all this and still I don't get the cubes to process. Do I need to rename the file to UDL after everything? When I process now I get the message "Data Source Provider Error:[Microsoft][ODBC Driver Manager]Driver's SQLSetConnectAttr failed;IM006..." What should the provider name be in the UDL file? Mine says MSDASQL.1|||As an example, here is what I have in notepad after I create a connection:

[oledb]
; Everything after this line is an OLE DB initstring
Provider=MSDASQL.1;Persist Security Info=False;Extended Properties="driver={sql server};server=l6064909;database=master;trusted_co nnection=true"|||I got the cube to process, now when I click on browse data I get a message that states "Unable to browse the cube 'Sales'. Unspecified error." Is this because of the service pack?

Analysis

SQL 2K
I created my cube, process data and played with it.
My question is , how to make this accessible to my users' will they have to
get into Analysis Manager '
Is there any automated job to refresh (process) my cube on a daily basis. '
Thanks
ShThere are lots of ways to make this accessible to users. You can start off
by using pivot tables in Excel (preferably Xp) this can make an olap
connection and for the most part drill down, slice, etc.
An automated way to reprocess the cube is through DTS, there is a task
called process cube. You can schedule that at your leisure.
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Shamim" <shamim.abdul@.railamerica.com> wrote in message
news:ehZx6EoYDHA.2548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> SQL 2K
> I created my cube, process data and played with it.
> My question is , how to make this accessible to my users' will they have
to
> get into Analysis Manager '
> Is there any automated job to refresh (process) my cube on a daily basis.
'
> Thanks
> Sh
>

An error occurred during the move data process: -132

Hi friend,
I'm getting the following error message when applying Service Pack 2 for Analysis Services 2000 (SQL Server):
An error occurred during the move data process: -132
Anybody can help me?
Tks,
Alex BerenguerI had the same problem. To get around it, I had to shut down nearly every service on the Win2K server (with BackOffice 2000) I was installing to. After I shut down all the services I could, the installation seemed to work correctly.

Originally posted by alexberenguer
Hi friend,

I'm getting the following error message when applying Service Pack 2 for Analysis Services 2000 (SQL Server):

An error occurred during the move data process: -132

Anybody can help me?

Tks,
Alex Berenguer

AMO:How to do ProcessPartition by using AMO

Hi All,

i need a sample code how we can do process the partition by using AMO.

Please send the sample code.

Hi there,

You can take a look here for some sample code..

Chris.
|||

Hi,

Another sample code here: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=516918&SiteID=1

AMO: How to process after adding a measure?

Hi, friends, please look this:

dim tDatabase as Microsoft.AnalysisServices.DataBase

tDatabase=Mainform.AnalysisDB 'here to refer it to an object

tDatabase..Cubes(0).MeasureGroups(0).Measures.Add() 'here to add a measure

tDatabase..Cubes(0).Update(Microsoft.AnalysisServices.UpdateOptions.ExpandFull)

tDatabase.Process(Microsoft.AnalysisServices.ProcessType.ProcessUpdate)

I want to know if it's correct to use the ProcessType.ProcessUpdate option?

After adding/dropping a measure/KPI, what ProcessType need I use?

After update a dsv, what ProcessType need I use?

Thanks!

To the best of my knowledge processUpdate is only valid for dimensions (see http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345142.aspx)

If you add a measure you are changing the structure of the cube which will invalidate the cube, the easiest way to get the cube "fully operational" again would be to do a processFull. The same thing applies when removing a measure.

I don't think you need to do any processing for calculated measures or KPI's as these elements do not have storage structures associated with them.

As far as the DSV is concerned, it depends on the type of change you are making. Changing the DSV will not invalidate the cube structure as such. The DSV is an abstraction for the data source(s) of the cube. It depends on the type of changes you are making. If the data that comes out of the DSV is affected in any way, you would need to re-process the cube to get it to reflect these changes. More importantly, if you change data types or remove elements that other objects such as dimensions, partitions, measures etc. are dependant upon, then you would need to change those objects too and that would most likely require full re-processing.

|||

Thank you Gosbell ,

Please tell me if I drop or add a measure, if I always need to ProcessFull?

As you know, ProcessFull will take a very long time, specially when the cube is huge. I don't think the client could stand the long time just because he/she add or delete a measure thourgh my application with AMO.

How to deal with this problem?

|||

Please tell me if I drop or add a measure, if I always need to ProcessFull?

Yes, you do. You can add and remove calculations easy enough, but adding and removing measures that are linked to fact table columns changes the fundamental data structures. Adding and removing measures to a measureGroup is not really something to be done lightly, especially once a large cube has been deployed.

The bare minimum that you could do to get the cubes "queryable" again would be a processStructure followed by a processData, but the cubes would not have any indexes or aggregations, so they could be quite slow. Doing a processIndex would add the indexes and aggregations, but processFull is the effectively the same as doing all three of these operations individually. You might see a slight performance advantage by doing the three operations individually, but it would not be a dramatic change.

|||I see that. Thanks again, Gosbell!

AMO and ProcessAdd for dimensions

Is there any way to process a dimension using ProcessAdd using AMO without using xmla? We currently have an app for SQL2000 that processes dimensions using DSO - ProcessUpdate that a colleague insists can just be changed to AMO - ProcessAdd but I am not getting the impression that it is as simple as that.

A quick yes or no would be great!

Thanks

Hi,

You can do it, but this only add the new records to your dimension.

If your dimension data has updated records they will not be updated in SSAS dimension.

You can check this link

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345142.aspx

Regards,

Raul

|||

Thanks for the response. However, I have read that link previously and the examples all show that xmla must be used. I was wondering something similar to this post:

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2147144&SiteID=17

rprs wrote:

Hi,

You can do it, but this only add the new records to your dimension.

If your dimension data has updated records they will not be updated in SSAS dimension.

You can check this link

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345142.aspx

Regards,

Raul

AMO <-> XMLA serialization?

I'm in the process of developing additional tooling to help auto-partition my cube, and I've developed some AMO code to connect to my AS database to do this.

What I'm worried about is the fact that there's no good way to keep my online instance in sync with the persisted source code. IE, if I make a change in dev mode and re-deploy, all my auto-created partitions will be destroyed.

What's the best way to deal w/ this? I suppose I could constantly re-generate a BIDS project from the server every time I wanted to make a change. Or, if there was some way to deserialize the BIDS project files (since they're all XMLA anyway), I could apply my AMO code to the updated the XMLA object definitions.

Have you looked at the Deployment Wizard. I am pretty sure it has the option of deploying a solution without overwritting the existing partitions.

Am I really using the full 2GB of Ram?

We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
Datacenter edition?
THANKS!
cmay,
SQL Server will only take as much RAM as it needs, and generally will
not release it unless asked for by the OS.
If you want to use more than 2Gb RAM for SQL Server you will need
Enterprise Edition.
Check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...sKChooseEd.asp
and
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ew/default.asp
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
cmay wrote:
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
>
> THANKS!
>
|||Mark,
Thanks for the reply.
I basically have 2 follow up questions:
1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
Datacenter editions of windows.
Can you clarify this?
|||"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118848547.194627.53370@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed.
This is likely. Depending on your configuration.

> In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Try pinning this memory if you want the process to take the full 2GBs.
USE master
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced option', '1'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'max server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'min server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'set working set size', '1'
RECONFIGURE

> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
You will need SQL Server and Windows Server editions that are beyond the
"Standard" editions.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;274750
...
|||Hi
SQL Server needs to leave about 256Mb or RAM in the MemToLeave area. This
allows for SQL Agent, XP's etc to run. With 2GB, the maximum SQL Server will
show is 1.65Gb.
Standard Windows 2000 supports up to 4GB or RAM. If you were to install SQL
server Enterprise Edition, it could use 3GB as the other 1GB is reserved for
the OS under Windows 32 bit.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118854442.903913.82200@.g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Mark,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I basically have 2 follow up questions:
> 1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
> memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
> SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
> 1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
> consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
> 2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
> Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
> edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
> Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
> 2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
> Datacenter editions of windows.
> Can you clarify this?
>
|||Thanks Mike

Am I really using the full 2GB of Ram?

We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
Datacenter edition?
THANKS!cmay,
SQL Server will only take as much RAM as it needs, and generally will
not release it unless asked for by the OS.
If you want to use more than 2Gb RAM for SQL Server you will need
Enterprise Edition.
Check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLResKChooseEd.asp
and
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/overview/default.asp
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
cmay wrote:
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
>
> THANKS!
>|||Mark,
Thanks for the reply.
I basically have 2 follow up questions:
1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
Datacenter editions of windows.
Can you clarify this?|||"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118848547.194627.53370@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed.
This is likely. Depending on your configuration.
> In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Try pinning this memory if you want the process to take the full 2GBs.
USE master
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced option', '1'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'max server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'min server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'set working set size', '1'
RECONFIGURE
> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
You will need SQL Server and Windows Server editions that are beyond the
"Standard" editions.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
...|||Hi
SQL Server needs to leave about 256Mb or RAM in the MemToLeave area. This
allows for SQL Agent, XP's etc to run. With 2GB, the maximum SQL Server will
show is 1.65Gb.
Standard Windows 2000 supports up to 4GB or RAM. If you were to install SQL
server Enterprise Edition, it could use 3GB as the other 1GB is reserved for
the OS under Windows 32 bit.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118854442.903913.82200@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I basically have 2 follow up questions:
> 1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
> memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
> SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
> 1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
> consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
> 2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
> Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
> edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
> Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
> 2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
> Datacenter editions of windows.
> Can you clarify this?
>|||Thanks Mike

Am I really using the full 2GB of Ram?

We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
Datacenter edition?
THANKS!cmay,
SQL Server will only take as much RAM as it needs, and generally will
not release it unless asked for by the OS.
If you want to use more than 2Gb RAM for SQL Server you will need
Enterprise Edition.
Check out:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...esKChooseEd.asp
and
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...iew/default.asp
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
cmay wrote:
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed. In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
>
> THANKS!
>|||Mark,
Thanks for the reply.
I basically have 2 follow up questions:
1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
Datacenter editions of windows.
Can you clarify this?|||"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118848547.194627.53370@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> We have a machine Server2000 / SQL Standard 2000.
> This machine has 2.5GB of RAM, but when we go into Task Manager we see
> the SqlServr.exe process is only using 1,740,000 KB of memory.
> This comes out to about 1.65 GB.
> I have heard that this might actually be the max amount of memory that
> will be consumed.
This is likely. Depending on your configuration.

> In other words, have we really reached our max
> memory allowed by SQL Server 2000 Standard?
Try pinning this memory if you want the process to take the full 2GBs.
USE master
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced option', '1'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'max server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'min server memory', '2048'
RECONFIGURE
EXEC sp_configure 'set working set size', '1'
RECONFIGURE

> Also, we are thinking about what we can do to allow us to take
> advantage of over 2GB. Is it correct that we a) Must have SQL Server
> Enterprise 2000 and b) must run on Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003
> Datacenter edition?
You will need SQL Server and Windows Server editions that are beyond the
"Standard" editions.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;274750
...|||Hi
SQL Server needs to leave about 256Mb or RAM in the MemToLeave area. This
allows for SQL Agent, XP's etc to run. With 2GB, the maximum SQL Server will
show is 1.65Gb.
Standard Windows 2000 supports up to 4GB or RAM. If you were to install SQL
server Enterprise Edition, it could use 3GB as the other 1GB is reserved for
the OS under Windows 32 bit.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"cmay" <cmay@.walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1118854442.903913.82200@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
> I basically have 2 follow up questions:
> 1) If a computer running 2000 Standard has maxed out its 2GB of
> memory, will it actually show up as 2GB of memory under the
> SQLServr.exe process in task manager? Some have suggested that our
> 1,740,000 KB (about) is really the max that SQL Server Standard will
> consume, even though it only adds up to about 1.65GB of RAM.
> 2) Can Enterprise edition make use of over 2GB of Ram while running on
> Windows 2000 Server, or must it run on W2k Advanced Server / Datacenter
> edition? I have read lots of stuff that says you *can* install SQL
> Enterprise on W2k Server, but I also read that in order to use over
> 2GB, it must use AWE, which is only available on Advanced Server /
> Datacenter editions of windows.
> Can you clarify this?
>|||Thanks Mike

Aluminum block with steel liner

What are the amnufacturing problem associated with cast in steel line
with aluminum dia casting process. Will it be better to insert the steel
liners after the machining process on the aluminum block.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***Since SQL Server is set associative it shouldn't matter the order in which
you do the join.
"joe inciong" wrote:

> What are the amnufacturing problem associated with cast in steel line
> with aluminum dia casting process. Will it be better to insert the steel
> liners after the machining process on the aluminum block.
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
>|||On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:26:27 -0800, "Matthew Speed"
<MatthewSpeed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Since SQL Server is set associative it shouldn't matter the order in which
>you do the join.
>"joe inciong" wrote:
>
LOL.
J.|||This guy is way past lost.
Is there really a news group for aluminum die casting?
Sorry... I just answered my own question.
rec.crafts.metalworking
"Matthew Speed" <MatthewSpeed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:42AA28A6-B5C5-4E7F-AFA5-327514E3D5E5@.microsoft.com...
> Since SQL Server is set associative it shouldn't matter the order in which
> you do the join.
> "joe inciong" wrote:
>|||Steel liners in an aluminum block sounds like a piston engine to me...
"Raymond D'Anjou" wrote:

> This guy is way past lost.
> Is there really a news group for aluminum die casting?
> Sorry... I just answered my own question.
> rec.crafts.metalworking
> "Matthew Speed" <MatthewSpeed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:42AA28A6-B5C5-4E7F-AFA5-327514E3D5E5@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Yes. Diesel engine especially also small engine like in lawn tractors. Most
cars engine are either cast iron or alumnin. Wait a miniute am i replyin in
the wrgon group?
Yes. Diesel engine and small engine like in lawn tractors. Most cars engine
is either cast iron or aluminum with no sleeves but there are some.
"Matthew Speed" <MatthewSpeed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5788352E-D44A-4BED-8C80-D67CB3644CB4@.microsoft.com...
> Steel liners in an aluminum block sounds like a piston engine to me...
> "Raymond D'Anjou" wrote:
>|||
"Grant" wrote:

> Yes. Diesel engine especially also small engine like in lawn tractors. Mos
t
> cars engine are either cast iron or alumnin. Wait a miniute am i replyin i
n
> the wrgon group?
>
It depends. Are you a SQL Server user or was this a response to a very
badly cross-posted message. My original response was just to have fun with
the fact that I could make an association between RDBMS and reciprocating
engine technology. If you are trying to give a real answer to the original
question take it to the correct group. This group is going to take it
absolutely nowhere.|||Opps. I was having fun until I offended you and yes I am a sql programmer.
Every one has a different sense of humor. It's a big world and it revolves
around the sun not you.
Cheer and now I will run away....
"Matthew Speed" <MatthewSpeed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C1FDD56B-F659-4A91-9C91-57538D9F6EF8@.microsoft.com...
>
> "Grant" wrote:
>
> It depends. Are you a SQL Server user or was this a response to a very
> badly cross-posted message. My original response was just to have fun
> with
> the fact that I could make an association between RDBMS and reciprocating
> engine technology. If you are trying to give a real answer to the
> original
> question take it to the correct group. This group is going to take it
> absolutely nowhere.|||"Grant" <email@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uLAFGpvMGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Opps. I was having fun until I offended you and yes I am a sql programmer.
> Every one has a different sense of humor. It's a big world and it revolves
> around the sun not you.
Not nearly as much as you offended me. You completely left out the plastic
lawn mower engines. You know, the ones with the little balls that bounce
around when you mow the lawn?

>
> Cheer and now I will run away....
>|||LAMO!!! my ten month old son has that.
"Jim Underwood" <james.underwoodATfallonclinic.com> wrote in message
news:%23dtGE0wMGHA.516@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Grant" <email@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uLAFGpvMGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Not nearly as much as you offended me. You completely left out the
> plastic
> lawn mower engines. You know, the ones with the little balls that bounce
> around when you mow the lawn?
>
>

Alternative to OSQL?

SQL2K SP4
Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a Stored
Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are there
any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
TIA, ChrisRHi Chris
You could write your own application to parse the file and run each command,
a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use the
EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass withou
t
having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK INSER
T
or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
John
"ChrisR" wrote:

> SQL2K SP4
> Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
> Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a Stored
> Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are the
re
> any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.

> You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
command
I really need to do this from within SQL Server.

> If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
without
> having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
INSERT
> or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
table, then from table to table?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Chris
> You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
command,
> a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use the
> EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
staging
> table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
without
> having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
INSERT[vbcol=seagreen]
> or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> John
> "ChrisR" wrote:
>
Stored[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]|||Hi Chris
How do you create the file that makes up these SQL Statements?
John
"ChrisR" wrote:

> I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
>
> command
> I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
>
> without
> INSERT
> How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
> the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
> table, then from table to table?
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> command,
> staging
> without
> INSERT
> Stored
> there
>
>|||It is made up for me. A mainframe does some stuff, an ETL tool called Tree
House does some stuff, etc.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FFCD1719-BA31-49DE-BD31-BC52EF3AD898@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Chris
> How do you create the file that makes up these SQL Statements?
> John
> "ChrisR" wrote:
>
from[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
Inserts/[vbcol=seagreen]
Are[vbcol=seagreen]|||Hi
I guess you could get it changed to produce updategrams and use SQLXML, but
it would be far easier and quicker just to dump a datafile and load it
en-mass.
If you want to still with the SQL statements then you could look at loading
this into a table and then using a cursor and execute statement to run them
(see books online for both), this would rely that each statement was less
than 8000 characters and contained no carriage return or line feeds.
John
"ChrisR" wrote:

> It is made up for me. A mainframe does some stuff, an ETL tool called Tree
> House does some stuff, etc.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FFCD1719-BA31-49DE-BD31-BC52EF3AD898@.microsoft.com...
> from
> to
> the
> Inserts/
> Are
>
>|||"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.noEmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230AAwWdoGHA.4776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
>
> command
> I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
Why?
In any case, your best bet is probably BULK INSERT.

>
> without
> INSERT
> How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
> the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
> table, then from table to table?
Yes and no. You can go from file->table.
What Chris is suggesting is a staging table (presumably w/o indexes) because
this will make the actual load from the file faster.
It's not necessary, but sometimes can improve performance and overall
maintenance.

>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> command,
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> staging
> without
> INSERT
Inserts/[vbcol=seagreen]
> Stored
> there
>

Alternative to OSQL?

SQL2K SP4
Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a Stored
Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are there
any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
TIA, ChrisRHi Chris
You could write your own application to parse the file and run each command,
a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use the
EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass without
having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK INSERT
or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
John
"ChrisR" wrote:
> SQL2K SP4
> Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
> Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a Stored
> Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are there
> any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
> You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
command
I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
> If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
without
> having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
INSERT
> or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
table, then from table to table?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Chris
> You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
command,
> a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use the
> EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
staging
> table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
without
> having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
INSERT
> or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> John
> "ChrisR" wrote:
> > SQL2K SP4
> >
> > Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
> > Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a
Stored
> > Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are
there
> > any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> >
> > TIA, ChrisR
> >
> >
> >|||Hi Chris
How do you create the file that makes up these SQL Statements?
John
"ChrisR" wrote:
> I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
> > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> command
> I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
> > If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> without
> > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> INSERT
> > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
> the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
> table, then from table to table?
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> command,
> > a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use the
> > EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> > security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
> staging
> > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> without
> > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> INSERT
> > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "ChrisR" wrote:
> >
> > > SQL2K SP4
> > >
> > > Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of Inserts/
> > > Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a
> Stored
> > > Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are
> there
> > > any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> > >
> > > TIA, ChrisR
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||It is made up for me. A mainframe does some stuff, an ETL tool called Tree
House does some stuff, etc.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FFCD1719-BA31-49DE-BD31-BC52EF3AD898@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Chris
> How do you create the file that makes up these SQL Statements?
> John
> "ChrisR" wrote:
> > I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
> >
> > > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> > command
> >
> > I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
> >
> > > If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> > > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> > without
> > > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> > INSERT
> > > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> >
> > How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it
from
> > the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file
to
> > table, then from table to table?
> >
> >
> > "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi Chris
> > >
> > > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> > command,
> > > a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use
the
> > > EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> > > security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
> > staging
> > > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> > without
> > > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> > INSERT
> > > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > "ChrisR" wrote:
> > >
> > > > SQL2K SP4
> > > >
> > > > Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of
Inserts/
> > > > Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a
> > Stored
> > > > Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file.
Are
> > there
> > > > any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> > > >
> > > > TIA, ChrisR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >|||Hi
I guess you could get it changed to produce updategrams and use SQLXML, but
it would be far easier and quicker just to dump a datafile and load it
en-mass.
If you want to still with the SQL statements then you could look at loading
this into a table and then using a cursor and execute statement to run them
(see books online for both), this would rely that each statement was less
than 8000 characters and contained no carriage return or line feeds.
John
"ChrisR" wrote:
> It is made up for me. A mainframe does some stuff, an ETL tool called Tree
> House does some stuff, etc.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FFCD1719-BA31-49DE-BD31-BC52EF3AD898@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > How do you create the file that makes up these SQL Statements?
> >
> > John
> >
> > "ChrisR" wrote:
> >
> > > I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
> > >
> > > > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> > > command
> > >
> > > I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
> > >
> > > > If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> > > > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> > > without
> > > > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> > > INSERT
> > > > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> > >
> > > How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it
> from
> > > the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file
> to
> > > table, then from table to table?
> > >
> > >
> > > "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Hi Chris
> > > >
> > > > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> > > command,
> > > > a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use
> the
> > > > EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> > > > security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
> > > staging
> > > > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> > > without
> > > > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> > > INSERT
> > > > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > "ChrisR" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > SQL2K SP4
> > > > >
> > > > > Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of
> Inserts/
> > > > > Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a
> > > Stored
> > > > > Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file.
> Are
> > > there
> > > > > any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA, ChrisR
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.noEmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230AAwWdoGHA.4776@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I appreciare your ideas, but Im confused.
> > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> command
> I really need to do this from within SQL Server.
Why?
In any case, your best bet is probably BULK INSERT.
> > If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a staging
> > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> without
> > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> INSERT
> > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> How would this be any better than what I have? I still need to get it from
> the file into a table. The way Im reading this, I need to go from file to
> table, then from table to table?
Yes and no. You can go from file->table.
What Chris is suggesting is a staging table (presumably w/o indexes) because
this will make the actual load from the file faster.
It's not necessary, but sometimes can improve performance and overall
maintenance.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C37FBE46-03DF-4FF8-9F53-35532DECCE64@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > You could write your own application to parse the file and run each
> command,
> > a different alternative would be to load the data into a table and use
the
> > EXEC command to run them. As your statements are in a file, there is a
> > security risk. If you just provided a data file and loaded it into a
> staging
> > table you could then insert/update existing data quite easily on-mass
> without
> > having to insert/update each row individually. You could use DTS, BULK
> INSERT
> > or BCP to quickly load the data into a staging table.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "ChrisR" wrote:
> >
> > > SQL2K SP4
> > >
> > > Howdy all. I have a daily process that gets a .txt file full of
Inserts/
> > > Updates/ Deletes and imports them into a SQL DB every day. I have a
> Stored
> > > Proc that calls a .bat which contains OSQL and runs the .txt file. Are
> there
> > > any alternatives to this from within SQL Server?
> > >
> > > TIA, ChrisR
> > >
> > >
> > >
>