|
I would have agreed, but I created a new database on the SQL server. I went to a client machine to connect, and once again, the new database does not show in the list. I get the SQL list with master and such.
Truly, this is really bothersome. It is almost as if there is a "scope" problem. Could the GPO affect this? It is an Admin of the domain, but what was given to me was that this admin account has full access. I would think to differ only because ... SQL installs with a local machine admin yes?
Creator/Owner does have special permissions by default on 2008 ... would any portion of this effect the DATA folder where the database has been relocated for attachment?
Lastly, I will try using nonintegrated methods and consider troubleshooting ID values as well per Mycroft Holmes' post.
|
|
|
|
|
I have set up a second instance of SSRS 2005 on a Microsoft 2003 server using the custom security extension sample. I have the report server login working with the custom security extension, but cannot seem to get the report manager working with this.
The error I am getting is "The attempt to connect to the report server failed. Check your connection information and that the report server is a compatible version."
Now what I thought was that the logon form would display, the admin would login and then be able to add roles, etc. Is this wrong? If so, how is it supposed to work and how to I configure it to work that way?
Below is how I have my report manager config's configured.
ReportManager folder - RSMGRPOLICY.CONFIG
<CodeGroup
class="UnionCodeGroup"
version="1"
PermissionSetName="FullTrust">
<IMembershipCondition
class="UrlMembershipCondition"
version="1"
Url="$CodeGen$/*"
/>
</CodeGroup>
ReportManager folder - RSWEBAPPLICATION.CONFIG
<UI>
<CustomAuthenticationUI>
<loginUrl>/Pages/UILogon.aspx</loginUrl>
<UseSSL>False</UseSSL>
</CustomAuthenticationUI>
<ReportServerUrl>http:/servername/ReportsExternal</ReportServerUrl>
</UI>
ReportManager folder - WEB.CONFIG
<identity impersonate="false"/>
|
|
|
|
|
Dear friends,
For days now, I have been trying to restore a backup of the database (with command prompt) I had made with mysqldump. This is my line of code.
"C:\Program Files\MySQL\MySQL Server 5.5\mysql --user=root --password=mypassword --host= localhost --port= 3306 --database=dbname < C:/Backup/dbname.sql"
I get "The filename, directory name, or volume lable syntax is incorrect" error messsage. I have googled for this error to no avail as to do with mysql.
- My mysql server is up and running with no problem. (Even the mysqldump command works)
-Problem is the same even if I open the command prompt from C:\Program Files\MySQL\MySQL Server 5.5\mysql
-I have tried to remove "", did not help.
- I tried to change / with \ but no success.
For this one, I will really appreciate any help.
|
|
|
|
|
Get the MySQL GUI Tools and try with them. That's the easiest way.
My impression is that you do something wrong with spaces and quotation marks. What about
"C:\Program Files\MySQL\MySQL Server 5.5\bin\mysql.exe" --user=root --password=mypassword --host=localhost --port=3306 --database=dbname < "C:\Backup\dbname.sql"
In case of the GUI tools, you need not worry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. I got through it, and yes, the trick was to remove " before the first --user...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,I have a problem with back up command!
I use this code but it doesnt work:
string constr = @"DataSource=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=C:\Users\EHSAN\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\hokm\hokm\App_Data\Database1.mdf;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True;";
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection con = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection ();
con.ConnectionString = constr;
con.Open();
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand comm=newSystem.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand();
comm.CommandText = @"backup database Database1 to disk ='c:\Users\EHSAN\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\hokm\hokm\DBbackup.bak' with init,stats=10";
comm.Connection = con;
comm.ExecuteNonQuery();
con.Close();
and when I run it, I get this error:
Database 'Database1' does not exist. Make sure that the name is entered correctly.
BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
but I use the database1 and I connect it successfully!
what is the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Uhm you are naming your backup file with the .aspx extension, pretty sure that is going to bite you later, normal extension is .bak
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
ohhh,it was a typing mistake ,
I still have this error !
and another note is that the DBBackup.bak file doesn't exsit for the first time and I wanted to use the directory.createdirectory,file.exist or directory.exist method but I dont know what name space(s) should I use!
any suggession for my tow questions????
plz help me!
|
|
|
|
|
sara-setare wrote: but I use the database1 and I connect it successfully!
Are the connectionstrings the same? Sql Server databases are usually attached to that server, with the server assigning a database-alias to that attached file.
You are attaching a file "on the fly", without specifying an alias. I doubt that Sql Server will use the filename as the database-alias. Add a "Database=database1;" part to your connectionstring, similar to the example given below;
Server=.\SQLExpress;AttachDbFilename=C:\MyFolder\MyDataFile.mdf;Database=dbname;
Trusted_Connection=Yes;
I'd recommend attaching it permanently to the server to avoid collisions in alias-names when attaching.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much,it works!
but maybe a primary question!!:
how can I attach my database permanently to the server?
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. Easiest is using the Sql Management Studio, but it could also be done using TSQL;
sp_attach_db [ @dbname= ] 'dbname'
, [ @filename1= ] 'filename_n' [ ,...16 ]Source[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I am using a windows forms application to write data to a SQL 2008 database over a wireless network. (Scanning serial numbers)
While stepping through the code in debug mode, the Connection.Open seems to take relatively long.
Is it bad practice to open a connection when the application starts, to avoid delays caused by opening the connection each time a query is executed?
Will the connection stay open, or will SQL server drop it if it is unused for some time?
|
|
|
|
|
Richard.Berry100 wrote: Is it bad practice to open a connection when the application starts, to avoid delays caused by opening the connection each time a query is executed?
Yes. Opening/closing a connection takes very little time. There's a connection-pool that manages the connections.
Another advantage of closing your connection is that you'll be able to handle more client-connections. If your server can handle 25 clients simultaneous, how much would it be able to handle if they only connect when required?
Richard.Berry100 wrote: Will the connection stay open, or will SQL server drop it if it is unused for some time?
That'd be easy to test, wouldn't it? Write a console-app and tell us if it indeed stays open as it should; there's only a timeout on creating a connection and on executing statements, not on the lifetime of the connection. That doesn't mean that the server will guarantee an open connection. A single Windows-update could force a reboot and close the connection. Or the cleaning-lady, when she unplugs the server and plugs in her vacuum-cleaner 
--edit
Here's the link I was looking for; SQL Server Connection Pooling (ADO.NET)[^]
To minimize the cost of opening connections, ADO.NET uses an optimization technique called connection pooling. [...] It manages connections by keeping alive a set of active connections for each given connection configuration. Whenever a user calls Open on a connection, the pooler looks for an available connection in the pool.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
modified 20-Apr-13 6:23am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
I instantiate and dispose the connection only once, but I open and close it for each operation.
|
|
|
|
|
Define your connection at the start, then for each operation open then close the connection once the operation is complete.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Richard.Berry100 wrote:
Is it bad practice to open a connection when the application starts, to avoid delays caused by opening the connection each time a query is executed?
Normal MS stuff uses a connection pool. The first time you create the connection it is opened. After that it gets it from the pool. It is already open and it stays open. It never closes while the application runs. That is the default behavior of the connection pool.
Your suggestion is doing nothing more than priming the pump to make it appear later that your application is more responsive.
So
1. There is nothing wrong with doing that.
2. It is unlikely to have any impact on the database server nor the architecture
3. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Richard.Berry100 wrote: or will SQL server drop it if it is unused for some time?
No SQL Server will not close idle connections. That itself is actually a problem because it means that if a client connection crashes (client fails or network fails) that the connection just remains there forever. One either must set up a process to clean them or at least look for them every once in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
It is still preferable to use Open to get the connection from the pool and Close to return it.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
It is still preferable to use Open to get the
connection from the pool and Close to return it.
I would say it is the only way.
|
|
|
|
|
Yip, agreed, see the reply I posted to my own question with speed tests on various approaches, and reference to Eddy's link - Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the link Eddy posted puts a lot into perspective, in that closing the connection does not really kill it, it leaves it in the pool, and unless there is something in the connection that changes, like accessing a different database, or using a different User ID the same connection from that pool is used again.
I tried inserting 10000 records (on server on local machine) in three different ways.
The difference was only about 100ms
private void cmdInsert_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
string cnStr = "Data Source=" + Server + ";Initial Catalog=" + Database + ";User Id=" + DBUser + "; Password=" + DBPass + ";";
string strSql = "Insert INTO dbo.SpeedTest (Mydata) VALUES ('Hello')";
sw.Start();
using (System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection cn = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection(cnStr))
{
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand cmd = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand(strSql, cn);
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
cn.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
cn.Close();
}
}
sw.Stop();
this.txtResults.Text = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString();
}
private void cmdInsert_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
string cnStr = "Data Source=" + Server + ";Initial Catalog=" + Database + ";User Id=" + DBUser + "; Password=" + DBPass + ";";
string strSql = "Insert INTO dbo.SpeedTest (Mydata) VALUES ('Hello')";
sw.Start();
using (System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection cn = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection(cnStr))
{
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand cmd = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand(strSql, cn);
cn.Open();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
cn.Close();
}
sw.Stop();
this.txtResults.Text = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString();
}
private void cmdInsert_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
string cnStr = "Data Source=" + Server + ";Initial Catalog=" + Database + ";User Id=" + DBUser + "; Password=" + DBPass + ";";
string strSql = "Insert INTO dbo.SpeedTest (Mydata) VALUES ('Hello')";
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
using (System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection cn = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection(cnStr))
{
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand cmd = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand(strSql, cn);
cn.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
cn.Close();
}
}
sw.Stop();
this.txtResults.Text = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString();
}
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
How do you recursively remove the last character from a string in Oracle e.g for string 'HPN12345', I would like to build the following:
HPN12345
HPN1234
HPN123
HPN12
HPN1
HPN
I know how to do this in Oracle 11 using a recursive common table expression (CTE), but I need to implement this in Oracle 10g (without using a user function).
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
A while loop based on the length would work.
|
|
|
|
|
Try this one... Change value of MIN_DEPTH and CHAR_STR as required.
SELECT SUBSTR(A.CHAR_STR, 0, LENGTH(A.CHAR_STR) - LEVEL + 1) OUTPUT
FROM (SELECT 'HPN12345' CHAR_STR, 3 MIN_DEPTH FROM DUAL) A
CONNECT BY LENGTH(A.CHAR_STR) - LEVEL + 1 >= A.MIN_DEPTH;
Thanks & Regards,
Niral Soni
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Niral.. Your code was very helpful. It helped point me in the right direction.
Much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
