Addition to the above.

I forgot to add, you'll see that ZONE has less records than STATE, thats
because the current system is storing NAMES not keys, and a ZONE name can be
in more than on STATE, e.g. STATE:"New York" can have a zone called
ZONE:"AGRICULTURE" and STATE:"California" can have a zone called
ZONE:"AGRICULTURE"Sorry, another thing... the record counts in the first post are DISTINCT
counts...

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
Merle
Perhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
MerlePerhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
MerlePerhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

adding odbc to linked server

I have a odbc driver to a customized text file system (on aix), I am using
winsql to query from that sysem, does sql server allow to register it as a
linked server. I am guessing i should be able to register as i have odbc
driver to the system. Please suggest me if it is possible
When i try to do it, i am getting message like i mentioned here
Error 7399: OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' reported an error.
Client unable to establish connection error:1408F0C6:SSL3_GET_RECORD: packet
length too long]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'MSDASQL' IDBInitialize::Initialize
returned 0x80004005: ],
Thanks,
Subbu.
Hi
ODBC datasource use the MSDASQL provider and require a System DSN. This
error can occur if it is a User DSN. See sp_addlinkedserver in books online
for an example. If you still have problems you may want to turn ODBC tracing
on to debug it.
John
"Subbaiahd" <subbaiahd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23XK7zvYzEHA.576@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have a odbc driver to a customized text file system (on aix), I am using
> winsql to query from that sysem, does sql server allow to register it as a
> linked server. I am guessing i should be able to register as i have odbc
> driver to the system. Please suggest me if it is possible
> When i try to do it, i am getting message like i mentioned here
> Error 7399: OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' reported an error.
> Client unable to establish connection error:1408F0C6:SSL3_GET_RECORD:
> packet
> length too long]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'MSDASQL' IDBInitialize::Initialize
> returned 0x80004005: ],
>
> Thanks,
> Subbu.
>
|||There is a problem with odbc driver after i corrected it i am able to
register as linked server without any errors, and i can see the list of
tables in enterprise manager, but I am not able to run a query , see below
for error message i am getting for a query
query:
select CLI_ID, CLIENT_NAME
from IMPACT...CLI WHERE CLI_ID = '00001083'
error message:
Server: Msg 306, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted,
except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator.
Can you please give me more details how to to turn ODBC tracing on to debug.
Thanks,
Subbu.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:enu1IB0zEHA.1452@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> ODBC datasource use the MSDASQL provider and require a System DSN. This
> error can occur if it is a User DSN. See sp_addlinkedserver in books
online
> for an example. If you still have problems you may want to turn ODBC
tracing[vbcol=seagreen]
> on to debug it.
> John
> "Subbaiahd" <subbaiahd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23XK7zvYzEHA.576@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
using[vbcol=seagreen]
a
>
|||Hi
In the ODBC Data Source Manager applet (either in control panel or on
the Administrators menu), you will see a trace tab, with a button to
start tracing. At a guess CLI_ID is being interpreted as text, ntext
or image and that you need to specify CLI_ID LIKE '00001083'.
John
"Subbaiahd" <subbaiahd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<u8FDdVX0EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> There is a problem with odbc driver after i corrected it i am able to
> register as linked server without any errors, and i can see the list of
> tables in enterprise manager, but I am not able to run a query , see below
> for error message i am getting for a query
> query:
> select CLI_ID, CLIENT_NAME
> from IMPACT...CLI WHERE CLI_ID = '00001083'
> error message:
> Server: Msg 306, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted,
> except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator.
>
> Can you please give me more details how to to turn ODBC tracing on to debug.
> Thanks,
> Subbu.
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:enu1IB0zEHA.1452@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> online
> tracing
> using
> a
|||I started odbc tracing , but could not understand the log. If you want to
see i can paste its contents but the log file size is 2MB. I dont have a
clue to proceed further, can you please help me.
Query:
select CLI_ID, CLIENT_NAME
from IMPACT...CLI WHERE CLI_ID like '00001083'
Error message:
Server: Msg 7356, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' supplied inconsistent metadata for a column.
Metadata information was changed at execution time.
OLE DB error trace [Non-interface error: Column 'CLI_ID' (compile-time
ordinal 1) of object 'CLI' was reported to have a DBCOLUMNFLAGS_ISLONG of
128 at compile time and 0 at run time].
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b81e6a.0411231254.6732697d@.posting.google.co m...
> Hi
>
> In the ODBC Data Source Manager applet (either in control panel or on
> the Administrators menu), you will see a trace tab, with a button to
> start tracing. At a guess CLI_ID is being interpreted as text, ntext
> or image and that you need to specify CLI_ID LIKE '00001083'.
> John
>
> "Subbaiahd" <subbaiahd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<u8FDdVX0EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
below[vbcol=seagreen]
debug.[vbcol=seagreen]
This[vbcol=seagreen]
it as[vbcol=seagreen]
odbc[vbcol=seagreen]
error:1408F0C6:SSL3_GET_RECORD:[vbcol=seagreen]
IDBInitialize::Initialize[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hi
Searching google for "OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' supplied inconsistent
metadata for a column" turns up quite a few posts, so you can gain
solace in that you are not alone! If you ran the query without the
where clause does it still cause a problem? Suggestions from other
posts include using OPENQUERY or using the Oracle OLEDB driver
instead. This post points you to a KB article on the error and how you
may gain more information:
http://tinyurl.com/55x93
HTH
John
"Subbaiahd" <subbaiahd@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<#wvDYOk0EHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I started odbc tracing , but could not understand the log. If you want to
> see i can paste its contents but the log file size is 2MB. I dont have a
> clue to proceed further, can you please help me.
> Query:
> select CLI_ID, CLIENT_NAME
> from IMPACT...CLI WHERE CLI_ID like '00001083'
> Error message:
> Server: Msg 7356, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' supplied inconsistent metadata for a column.
> Metadata information was changed at execution time.
> OLE DB error trace [Non-interface error: Column 'CLI_ID' (compile-time
> ordinal 1) of object 'CLI' was reported to have a DBCOLUMNFLAGS_ISLONG of
> 128 at compile time and 0 at run time].
>
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b81e6a.0411231254.6732697d@.posting.google.co m...
> news:<u8FDdVX0EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
> below
> debug.
> This
> online
> tracing
> using
> it as
> a
> odbc
> error:1408F0C6:SSL3_GET_RECORD:
> IDBInitialize::Initialize

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using the
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
>> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
> the
>> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
>> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
>> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
>> I'm currently thinking about
>> 1) Adding the column Nullable
>> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
>> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using the
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>
|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> the
>
|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')
|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using th
e
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> the
>|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

adding new volume and swapping drive letters....

Hello - I have a SQL 2000 server which has a D: drive that contains all of my databases (system and user). I am running out of space on this volume and need to migrate the contents of this volume to a larger one. My initial plan was to introduce a new volume to the server (say a K: drive). Backup all databases (of course), and then stop all SQL services. Copy all data from D: to K:. Once data is copied, swap drive letter names (D: to I: and then K: to D. Then restart SQL services. SQL should not know any better since everything was on the D: drive when it went down, and everythiing is still on the D: drive when it came back up, correct?

The other option mentioned is to detatch the databases, copy the data and then reattach them in their new locations. I understand this method, but it seems more involved (and riskier) than just renaming the drives. Does anyone have an opinion regarding these two migration methods? Thanks for your help.

Chris
I would use the attach / detach method, would be the best solution for me in this case.

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||As you indicated, the drive rename method may be less effort. As long as you are using the Disk Management applet -and not just mapping drives, it should work just fine.

Adding Group to MSSQL

As I understand it, a system group should show up in enterprise manager. But
when I create a new group in computer manager, the group doesn't show in up
in mssql. Am I doing this wrong?Got it,
Exec sp_grantlogin 'computername\groupname'
Thanks

Adding Group to MSSQL

As I understand it, a system group should show up in enterprise manager. But when I create a new group in computer manager, the group doesn't show in up in mssql. Am I doing this wrong?Got it,
Exec sp_grantlogin 'computername\groupname
Thanks

Adding Dataset Column Values to my Table At the End

Hi,

I am mapping an entity from SQL 2005 to another entity in another system on SQL 2000. Since the destination system has its own ID generator, I want to keep the generated ID for each row of my table in a column of my table in SQL 2005. The new column is in the dataset now , but I don't know how to update my table to have that column values (The OleDbDestination just insert new items.)

Samy

OLE DB Command transform is used to do updates.

You may want to read the last paragraph on this blog post: http://www.sqljunkies.com/WebLog/ashvinis/archive/2005/02/03/7275.aspx

-Jamie

Adding data to more than one table

Hi there,

I am currently setting up a registration system where customers can registers their details and the details of the product, using ASP.net and MS SQL.

There is a column called customerID in the Custoemrs table, and a column of the same name in the Products table, so that I can have relationships between the tables.

For obvious reasons (ie. people that quit half-way through), I want to hold all the information until the end. The ID in the Customer table is unique, and auto-increasing, and therefore not assigned until the data enters the database.

However, I wish to submit information to the Products table at the same time, but what shall I put in for the custoemrID (which hasn't yet been assigned)

Thank you in advance for your help,

Nathair

It's a Referential Integrity issue. You need a ForeignKey with Cascading on UPDATE/DELETE to maintain the Referential Integrity on UPDATE/DELETE: take CustomerID column on Customer table as PrimaryKey, and CustomerID on Products table as ForeignKey, you can refer to this link:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177463.aspx

To maintain the Referential Integrity when INSERT, you can create an INSRET Trigger on the Customer table as following:

create trigger trg_Customer on Customer for insert
as
insert into Products select CustomerId,'myProduct' from inserted
go

You can take a look at this link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_create2_7eeq.asp

|||Thanks for that. UPDATE/DELETE isn't really gonna be an issue.

Normally I hard-core my SQL statement into the actual page - however, this time I'm thinking of using an SP in MS SQL. For both ways, I am unsure on how to incorporate the trigger?

Thanks,
Nathair

adding another system administrator

Hi all

I deleted the sa account

how do I add it with all the correct permissions (plus include it in all the tables )

TIA

Guy

Recreate the login 'sa', then add it to the sysadmin server role For more information about sa, take a look at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_security_8soe.asp

Adding an Image

Hello:

I have an Image control on my report .

I have a Class for example :

public Class Class1

private _MyPic as System.Drawing.Image

public property MyPic as System.Drawing.Image

......

end

end

the Dataset Of My Report is Class1.

i Drop an Image from toolbar in My Report and set Source to Database and set value to =Fields!MyPic.value

befor showing the Report i Create an object from Class1 and fill MyPic and set DataSet of Report to that Object

but i see a Red X instead of Picture

please help me

thanks alot

Setting the image source = Database is correct, but you have to convert the System.Drawing.Image into the actual image data as byte array.

Here is a C# code snippet to convert an image into a byte[] using a MemoryStream:

// save image to byte[]
System.IO.MemoryStream renderedImage = new MemoryStream();
myImage.Save(renderedImage);
renderedImage.Position = 0;
return renderedImage.ToArray();

-- Robert

Adding a web reference (web service) to an SSIS script task?

Is it possible to do this under SSIS 2005? How? I see I can add a reference to system.web.services.dll.. but then what?

The web service was developed in vb.net/vs.net 2005 and I have no problem adding and consuming it from a web page developed using vs.net 2005 - asp.net/vb.net.

Thanks for any help or information.

VSA won't allow you set a web reference. You can compile the proxy created by Visual Studio and reference that.
|||

Jay is absolutely correct. Script Task uses VSA as its dotnet editor and that does not support web references.

Although it doesn't help you much now...the functionality you are after will be in katmai. In the meantime, do what Jay suggested.

-Jamie