sql rowcount: rows

Showing posts with label rows. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

[MS Design Tools] - Class not registered."

On a Windows 2000 pro workstation I am using SQL 2000 enterprise
manager I am trying to return all rows, I get the error message "An
unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] -
Class not registered."
I have reinstalled the client tools, reinstalled service pack 3a, but I
am not having any luck. Any ideas how I can resolve this issue?
Thanks
| From: "Ryan" <rstodola@.gmail.com>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients
| Subject: [MS Design Tools] - Class not registered."
| Date: 22 Feb 2005 11:38:57 -0800
| Organization: http://groups.google.com
| Lines: 12
| Message-ID: <1109101137.832608.183900@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.176.151.126
| Mime-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
| X-Trace: posting.google.com 1109101141 26265 127.0.0.1 (22 Feb 2005
19:39:01 GMT)
| X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@.google.com
| NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
| User-Agent: G2/0.2
| Complaints-To: groups-abuse@.google.com
| Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=129.176.151.126;
| posting-account=OtO42g0AAAAxhVXq79oLm_y3qUbyubb3
| Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSF TNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.
sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2 000cwb.g
ooglegroups.com!not-for-mail
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients:29558
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients
|
| On a Windows 2000 pro workstation I am using SQL 2000 enterprise
| manager I am trying to return all rows, I get the error message "An
| unexpected error happened during this operation. [MS Design Tools] -
| Class not registered."
|
|
| I have reinstalled the client tools, reinstalled service pack 3a, but I
| am not having any luck. Any ideas how I can resolve this issue?
|
|
| Thanks
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><>
Hi Ryan,
Try re-installing the current version of MDAC on your system. You can use
the Component Checker
to determine installed version information of MDAC -
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...df6-4a21-4b43-
bf53-14332ef092c9&displaylang=en
HTH,
Yasemin Gunduz
SQL Support Engineer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[MS Design Tools] - Class Not Registered

[Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql Server]Line1: Incorrect Sy

Hi,
I am using SQL server 2000. One of the tables in it has become really large
so i tried to use a sql query to view only a certain rows. I used the
following query:
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= X
When i verified the syntax , it verified correctly. Buy when i tried to run
the query i got the error msg box :: [Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql
Server]Line1: Invalid column name X .
But a column with the company value as X exists!
Also when i tried to use a little different query:: SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE Company LIKE s % , then i get the same error but the end part of the
error message says Incorrect Syntax Near %
Why is this happening?
--
pmudIt's a string, you need string delimiters.
WHERE Company='X'
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A17DE491-DF25-47D0-BBA4-F84A2FE6602A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am using SQL server 2000. One of the tables in it has become really
large
> so i tried to use a sql query to view only a certain rows. I used the
> following query:
> SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= X
> When i verified the syntax , it verified correctly. Buy when i tried to
run
> the query i got the error msg box :: [Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server
Driver][Sql
> Server]Line1: Invalid column name X .
> But a column with the company value as X exists!
> Also when i tried to use a little different query:: SELECT * FROM TABLE
> WHERE Company LIKE s % , then i get the same error but the end part of
the
> error message says Incorrect Syntax Near %
> Why is this happening?
> --
> pmud|||you need single quotes around all character fields
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= 'X'
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company LIKE 's %'
-Andre
"pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A17DE491-DF25-47D0-BBA4-F84A2FE6602A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am using SQL server 2000. One of the tables in it has become really
> large
> so i tried to use a sql query to view only a certain rows. I used the
> following query:
> SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= X
> When i verified the syntax , it verified correctly. Buy when i tried to
> run
> the query i got the error msg box :: [Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server
> Driver][Sql
> Server]Line1: Invalid column name X .
> But a column with the company value as X exists!
> Also when i tried to use a little different query:: SELECT * FROM TABLE
> WHERE Company LIKE s % , then i get the same error but the end part of
> the
> error message says Incorrect Syntax Near %
> Why is this happening?
> --
> pmud|||Thanks I was trying to use double quotes instead of single...
Thanks :))
"Andre Chan" wrote:
> you need single quotes around all character fields
> SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= 'X'
> SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company LIKE 's %'
> -Andre
> "pmud" <pmud@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A17DE491-DF25-47D0-BBA4-F84A2FE6602A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using SQL server 2000. One of the tables in it has become really
> > large
> > so i tried to use a sql query to view only a certain rows. I used the
> > following query:
> >
> > SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE Company= X
> >
> > When i verified the syntax , it verified correctly. Buy when i tried to
> > run
> > the query i got the error msg box :: [Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server
> > Driver][Sql
> > Server]Line1: Invalid column name X .
> >
> > But a column with the company value as X exists!
> >
> > Also when i tried to use a little different query:: SELECT * FROM TABLE
> > WHERE Company LIKE s % , then i get the same error but the end part of
> > the
> > error message says Incorrect Syntax Near %
> >
> > Why is this happening?
> > --
> > pmud
>
>

[Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql Server]Line1: Incorrect Sy

Monday, February 13, 2012

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together
.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? Ho
w
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:

> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept togeth
er.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updatin
g
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:

> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So giv
e
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonagh
Looking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:

> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh
|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David
|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:

> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||No such thing as an ordered INSERT. What you need to do is add a batch
number or othetr identifier to tell you what batches belong together.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> > My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> > a
> > variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> > collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> > in
> > each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> > together.
> >
> > What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> > SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> > (updating
> > won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> > How
> > would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> > occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>|||In that case please explain what you mean by a batch being "kept
together". Are you referring to an IDENTITY column here? Please post
DDL and sample data so that we can understand the problem:
http://www.aspfaq.com/etiquette.asp?id=5006
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Thursday, February 9, 2012

@@ROWCOUNT

How can I return the number of rows returned by a select statement such as
the following one that returns zero in @.Qty ?
Alter Procedure GetMonitors
(
@.Qty INT OUTPUT
)
As
SELECT a.Suburb, a.State FROM
(
SELECT Suburb, State FROM Monitors
UNION
SELECT Suburb, State FROM Properties
WHERE Delisted Is Null
) a
GROUP BY Suburb, State
SET @.Qty = @.@.ROWCOUNT
return
Thanks in advance...Below work just fine for me... Did you define the parameter as out when you
call the proc?
USE pubs
GO
ALTER PROC p
@.qty int OUT
AS
SELECT au_lname, au_fname FROM authors
SET @.qty = @.@.ROWCOUNT
GO
--Prove that it works:
DECLARE @.rows int
EXEC p @.qty = @.rows OUT
PRINT @.rows
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"McHenry" <mchenry@.mchenry.com> wrote in message
news:44350412$0$20647$5a62ac22@.per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> How can I return the number of rows returned by a select statement such as
the following one that
> returns zero in @.Qty ?
> Alter Procedure GetMonitors
> (
> @.Qty INT OUTPUT
> )
> As
> SELECT a.Suburb, a.State FROM
> (
> SELECT Suburb, State FROM Monitors
> UNION
> SELECT Suburb, State FROM Properties
> WHERE Delisted Is Null
> ) a
> GROUP BY Suburb, State
> SET @.Qty = @.@.ROWCOUNT
> return
>
> Thanks in advance...
>|||Thanks... my mistake !
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OMCL8TXWGHA.1564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Below work just fine for me... Did you define the parameter as out when
> you call the proc?
> USE pubs
> GO
> ALTER PROC p
> @.qty int OUT
> AS
> SELECT au_lname, au_fname FROM authors
> SET @.qty = @.@.ROWCOUNT
> GO
> --Prove that it works:
> DECLARE @.rows int
> EXEC p @.qty = @.rows OUT
> PRINT @.rows
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "McHenry" <mchenry@.mchenry.com> wrote in message
> news:44350412$0$20647$5a62ac22@.per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>

@@rowcount

I want to do something like this.
SELECT *
FROM dbo.Contact [C]
-- If any rows are returned then return to front end.
IF @.@.rowcount > 0
Begin
GOTO FinishSuccessModule
End
-- But i had doubt here
We will never be sure that @.@.RowCount is giving the row count of the query
mentioned above since in a heavy concurrent scenario (as we have in our db
and its growing since our user base is also growing) before your query and
the checking of @.@.RowCount there might be another select fired by another
process or transaction which updates @.@.Rowcount which in turn give you
incorrect values.
how can we implement the same functionality using some other way, i dont
want If exists as there are around 6-7 conditions which are totally
select..if any one of them return record then come out else continue with
other sql st.
does @.@.rowcount create issues as mentioned above and second can we avoid
that using some other functionality.
Sanjay
Sanjay
No, rowcount is safe.
Bojidar Alexandrov
"Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7276DE0A-F23B-403B-BEE5-C83E51FA71FC@.microsoft.com...
> I want to do something like this.
> SELECT *
> FROM dbo.Contact [C]
> -- If any rows are returned then return to front end.
> IF @.@.rowcount > 0
> Begin
> GOTO FinishSuccessModule
> End
> -- But i had doubt here
> We will never be sure that @.@.RowCount is giving the row count of the
query
> mentioned above since in a heavy concurrent scenario (as we have in our db
> and its growing since our user base is also growing) before your query and
> the checking of @.@.RowCount there might be another select fired by another
> process or transaction which updates @.@.Rowcount which in turn give you
> incorrect values.
> how can we implement the same functionality using some other way, i dont
> want If exists as there are around 6-7 conditions which are totally
> select..if any one of them return record then come out else continue with
> other sql st.
> does @.@.rowcount create issues as mentioned above and second can we avoid
> that using some other functionality.
> --
> Sanjay
> --
> Sanjay
|||If all you need to know is are "any" rows returned and don't care how many,
I would change the initial query to SELECT TOP 1 * FROM dbo.Contact (C). If
your contact table gets thousands of rows, why go thru and read them all
when you just need to know "do I get back at least 1 row"? And to be more
specific, you don't need a SELECT *. Pick one narrow column for your
select. Something like select top 1 ContactID from dbo.contact (c). This
is a lot more efficient.
"Bojidar Alexandrov" <bojo_do_not_spam@.kodar.net> wrote in message
news:eWegGSspEHA.3244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, rowcount is safe.
> Bojidar Alexandrov
> "Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7276DE0A-F23B-403B-BEE5-C83E51FA71FC@.microsoft.com...
> query
db[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
another[vbcol=seagreen]
with
>

@@rowcount

I want to do something like this.
SELECT *
FROM dbo.Contact [C]
-- If any rows are returned then return to front end.
IF @.@.rowcount > 0
Begin
GOTO FinishSuccessModule
End
-- But i had doubt here
We will never be sure that @.@.RowCount is giving the row count of the query
mentioned above since in a heavy concurrent scenario (as we have in our db
and its growing since our user base is also growing) before your query and
the checking of @.@.RowCount there might be another select fired by another
process or transaction which updates @.@.Rowcount which in turn give you
incorrect values.
how can we implement the same functionality using some other way, i dont
want If exists as there are around 6-7 conditions which are totally
select..if any one of them return record then come out else continue with
other sql st.
does @.@.rowcount create issues as mentioned above and second can we avoid
that using some other functionality.
--
Sanjay
--
SanjayNo, rowcount is safe.
Bojidar Alexandrov
"Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7276DE0A-F23B-403B-BEE5-C83E51FA71FC@.microsoft.com...
> I want to do something like this.
> SELECT *
> FROM dbo.Contact [C]
> -- If any rows are returned then return to front end.
> IF @.@.rowcount > 0
> Begin
> GOTO FinishSuccessModule
> End
> -- But i had doubt here
> We will never be sure that @.@.RowCount is giving the row count of the
query
> mentioned above since in a heavy concurrent scenario (as we have in our db
> and its growing since our user base is also growing) before your query and
> the checking of @.@.RowCount there might be another select fired by another
> process or transaction which updates @.@.Rowcount which in turn give you
> incorrect values.
> how can we implement the same functionality using some other way, i dont
> want If exists as there are around 6-7 conditions which are totally
> select..if any one of them return record then come out else continue with
> other sql st.
> does @.@.rowcount create issues as mentioned above and second can we avoid
> that using some other functionality.
> --
> Sanjay
> --
> Sanjay|||If all you need to know is are "any" rows returned and don't care how many,
I would change the initial query to SELECT TOP 1 * FROM dbo.Contact (C). If
your contact table gets thousands of rows, why go thru and read them all
when you just need to know "do I get back at least 1 row"? And to be more
specific, you don't need a SELECT *. Pick one narrow column for your
select. Something like select top 1 ContactID from dbo.contact (c). This
is a lot more efficient.
"Bojidar Alexandrov" <bojo_do_not_spam@.kodar.net> wrote in message
news:eWegGSspEHA.3244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No, rowcount is safe.
> Bojidar Alexandrov
> "Sanjay" <Sanjay@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7276DE0A-F23B-403B-BEE5-C83E51FA71FC@.microsoft.com...
> > I want to do something like this.
> > SELECT *
> > FROM dbo.Contact [C]
> > -- If any rows are returned then return to front end.
> > IF @.@.rowcount > 0
> > Begin
> > GOTO FinishSuccessModule
> > End
> > -- But i had doubt here
> > We will never be sure that @.@.RowCount is giving the row count of the
> query
> > mentioned above since in a heavy concurrent scenario (as we have in our
db
> > and its growing since our user base is also growing) before your query
and
> > the checking of @.@.RowCount there might be another select fired by
another
> > process or transaction which updates @.@.Rowcount which in turn give you
> > incorrect values.
> >
> > how can we implement the same functionality using some other way, i dont
> > want If exists as there are around 6-7 conditions which are totally
> > select..if any one of them return record then come out else continue
with
> > other sql st.
> >
> > does @.@.rowcount create issues as mentioned above and second can we avoid
> > that using some other functionality.
> > --
> > Sanjay
> > --
> > Sanjay
>

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

[MS Design Tools] - Class not registered."

[MS Design Tools] - Class Not Registered

[Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql Server]Line1: Incorrect Sy

[Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql Server]Line1: Incorrect Sy

[Microsoft][ODBC Sql Server Driver][Sql Server]Line1: Incorrect Sy

Monday, February 13, 2012

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert

Thursday, February 9, 2012

@@ROWCOUNT

@@rowcount

@@rowcount

sql rowcount

Blog Archive

About Me