[Venting]

So I have this box with SQL Server 2000, Evaluation edition of SQL 2005
which has top be installed as a named instance because of the way that 2K &
2K5 co-exist on the same box, and then there are a couple silly apps I have
that install MSDE as other named instances.
and the STUPI .NET DATA CONNECTION DIALOG doesn't have a field geared toward
named instances.
@.#$%^&
I will now crawl back under my rock.
Peace & happy computing,
Mike Labosh, MCSD MCT
Owner, vbSensei.Com
"Escriba coda ergo sum." -- vbSenseiCan you edit the connection string in web.config or the source code?
"Mike Labosh" <mlabosh_at_vbsensei_dot_com> wrote in message
news:uwZSfc5PGHA.4900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> So I have this box with SQL Server 2000, Evaluation edition of SQL 2005
> which has top be installed as a named instance because of the way that 2K
> &
> 2K5 co-exist on the same box, and then there are a couple silly apps I
> have
> that install MSDE as other named instances.
> and the STUPI .NET DATA CONNECTION DIALOG doesn't have a field geared
> toward
> named instances.
> @.#$%^&
> I will now crawl back under my rock.
>
> --
> Peace & happy computing,
> Mike Labosh, MCSD MCT
> Owner, vbSensei.Com
> "Escriba coda ergo sum." -- vbSensei
>|||> Can you edit the connection string in web.config or the source code?
2K
Of course I can. It just angers me that the silly little foolish dialog
doesn't let me say so.
Peace & happy computing,
Mike Labosh, MCSD MCT
Owner, vbSensei.Com
"Escriba coda ergo sum." -- vbSensei

[TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionCheckForData()) Error

Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
--
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
--
Dave
"oj" wrote:
> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> > Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> > We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> >
> > The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> > union:
> > and mv.INSTR_ID in
> > (
> > select @.INSTR_ID
> > union
> > select ridf.INSTR_ID
> > from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> > join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> > and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> > where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> > )
> >
> >
>
>|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
--
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
>> change to:
>> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
>> union
>> select ridf.INSTR_ID
>> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
>> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
>> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
>> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
>> )
>> --
>> -oj
>>
>> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>> > Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under
>> > SP3a.
>> > We're using Standard Edition SP4.
>> >
>> > The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
>> > union:
>> > and mv.INSTR_ID in
>> > (
>> > select @.INSTR_ID
>> > union
>> > select ridf.INSTR_ID
>> > from FT_T_RIDF ridf
>> > join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
>> > and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
>> > where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
>> > )
>> >
>> >
>>sql

[TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionCheckForData()) Error

Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
--
Dave
"oj" wrote:

> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:
>

[TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionCheckForData()) Error

Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
We're using Standard Edition SP4.
The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a union:
and mv.INSTR_ID in
(
select @.INSTR_ID
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
change to:
( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
union
select ridf.INSTR_ID
from FT_T_RIDF ridf
join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
)
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
> Error was returned when we compiled a proc. The proc compiles under SP3a.
> We're using Standard Edition SP4.
> The offending statement is a sub-select in a where clause that uses a
> union:
> and mv.INSTR_ID in
> (
> select @.INSTR_ID
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
>
|||Hi oj,
Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
Dave
"oj" wrote:

> change to:
> ( select @.INSTR_ID AS [ID]
> union
> select ridf.INSTR_ID
> from FT_T_RIDF ridf
> join FT_T_RISS riss on riss.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID = ridf.RLD_ISS_FEAT_ID
> and riss.PART_UNITS_TYP = 'Option' and riss.INSTR_ID = @.INSTR_ID
> where ridf.REL_TYP = 'OPTION'
> )
> --
> -oj
>
> "davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3255283F-3B9E-435B-BFC4-51CF9B5069BD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Okay. Without seeing the *whole* thing I'm not sure what would be the case.
The syntax looks right to me.
Do post back if you hear anything.
-oj
"davidhg" <davidhg@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21FFCFE8-EED9-47FA-821C-AE224C630FDC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi oj,
> Unfortunately, the error still occurs. To compile the proc, we created a
> pseudo-talbe from the sub-select with the union statement and joined it
> directly to the other tables. FYI, I opened a case with MS.
> --
> Dave
>
> "oj" wrote:

[SQL Serevr 2005 Express] Loading data from an Excel sheet

Hi,

Is it possible to load data from an Excel sheet column, into a DB column within SQL Server Express Edition? I'm able to copy data from the DB talbe column into the Excel sheet, but not the other way, which forces me to enter data row by row, manually.

Thanks,

Alon

I describe one way I can do:

Create your table with the datastructure you want from VWD IDE for your batabase in the App_Data folder.

1.Select data from your excel columns and copy.

2.Open your table, highlight one blank row, right-click the highlighted area, from the manu select paste.

You already know how to copy data from SQL2005 Express to excel. It is sort of the same thing.

You may need to watch your column datatype.

|||

Hi limno,

Thanks for the detailed answer.

I tried it before, but unfortunately VWD doesn't support Paste of multiple cells. This means that if you'll copy several cells (within 1 column) from the Excel sheet, and try to paste it in the DB table (in VWD), as you described in step #2, you'll notice that only 1 cell, the one you highlighted, is affected.

This is, unless I'm missing something very basic...

Thanks,

Alon

|||

You paste over the highlighted row. That means all clomns in your table are highlighted.

If you highlight only one cell, it is true that everything goes in that cell.

Hope this helps.

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired

Hello,
I installed MS SQL Server 2000 Evaluation Edition on
Windows XP Pro PC. I have database on the same PC. When I
am running a query(view) from Query Analyser I
get "[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired"
error message . When I am running the same view on
smaller amount of data it works.
Could you please help me with that?
Thanks
DJ
hi
goto the server properties.then there is a property called connection time.
check it and give the appropiate time on this

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired

Hello,
I installed MS SQL Server 2000 Evaluation Edition on
Windows XP Pro. I have database on the same PC. When I
am running a query(view) from Query Analyser I
get "[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired"
error message . When I am running the same view on
smaller amount of data it works.

:confused:

Could you please help me with that?
Thanks
DJCheck out this page.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;313661|||The link in the previous post is for a connection timeout using SQL Server 7. It does not apply to running a query on SQL Server 2000.|||SQL Server 2000's default timeout period it 600 seconds (10 minutes). If you change it to zero (0), that's infinite. How long is it taking to timeout?

If you run a long query through the Enterprise Manager, it will timeout after 30 seconds. MS's answer to this is to use the Query Analyzer (which should not timeout). I've run a 14-hour query through SQL Query Analyzer before.

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired

Hello,
I installed MS SQL Server 2000 Evaluation Edition on
Windows XP Pro PC. I have database on the same PC. When I
am running a query(view) from Query Analyser I
get "[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver] Timeout Expired"
error message . When I am running the same view on
smaller amount of data it works.
Could you please help me with that?
Thanks
DJhi
goto the server properties.then there is a property called connection time
.
check it and give the appropiate time on this

[LOG] Unable to read local eventlog (reason: The parameter is incorrect) - FLOOD

[LOG] Unable to read local eventlog (reason: The parameter is incorrect)

I just had two seperate SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition machines suddently throw thousands of these errors within the last 24 hours. In both cases the the SQL agent and application event logs are just being flooded with a new entry every couple of seconds.

While the errors are being logged the Agent continues to run jobs (e.g. scheduled backups, etc.) without error.

A restart of the agent stops the errors and everything seems to be back to normal.

There is no commonality between the two machines, they are on different networks, domains, etc.

Both machines have been up >30 days and have not previously logged this error.

Anybody else seen this?

Thanks,

Joe

See this post Joe:

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=124086&SiteID=1

HTH,

[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE

[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong ?
please help
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>=20
>
|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong ?
> please help
>
|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.

> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement

> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement

> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.

> Anything wrong ?
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro ?
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>

[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE

[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =
desktop OS such as XP Pro. =20
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =
Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =
machine.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
>=20
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>=20
>|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.

> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement

> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement

> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =
SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =
to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =
to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =
edition.

> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =
does not install on.
--=20
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =
news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
>=20
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
>=20
> You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =
computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =
Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
>=20
> --=20
> Keith
>=20
>=20
> "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>=20
>

[INSTALL SQL SERVER] GOT A WARNING MESSAGE

[Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
supported ont this operation system
Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
my OS is winXP professional edition.
Anything wrong '
please helpIt is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a =desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer (for example for development/testing). You can install the =Personal Edition or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop =machine.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
> >|||That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
desktop OS such as XP Pro.
You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your computer
(for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal Edition
or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
--
Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
> Anything wrong '
> please help
>|||> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
That is the expected (and correct) behavior.
> [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> supported ont this operation system
This is a true statement
> Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
Also a true statement
> my OS is winXP professional edition.
This is your problem. The server editions (Standard and Enterprise) of =SQL Server do not install on to desktop operating systems. If you want =to install SQL Server onto your desktop operating system you will need =to install the Personal Edition, the Developer Edition, or a trial =edition.
> Anything wrong '
You are trying to install SQL Server onto an operating system that it =does not install on.
-- Keith
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message =news:%23b76DCPPEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> That's mean I can install to window server2000 but not XP Pro '
> > "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> ?
> news:OCgeK4OPEHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ?...
> It is not possible to install SQL Server (the server edition) on to a
> desktop OS such as XP Pro.
> > You do have a few options if you need the DBMS installed on your =computer
> (for example for development/testing). You can install the Personal =Edition
> or the Developer Edition of SQL Server to your desktop machine.
> > -- > Keith
> > > "Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:eJd9rxOPEHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > [Microsoft SQL server 2000 standard edition server component is not
> > supported ont this operation system
> > Only client components will be avaiable for installation ]
> >
> > my OS is winXP professional edition.
> > Anything wrong '
> > please help
> >
> >
> >

[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error

SQL Server Spec
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check yo
ur
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yewsorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:

> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check
your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew

[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error

SQL Server Spec
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
windows 2003 SP1
sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
webserver
windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
we received "intermittance"
Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
network documentation.
We already do this as mention in microsoft website
on SynAttackProtect:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
Any idea or any one have experience on this?
Cheers,
Liang Yew
sorry,
SQL Server
windows 2003 SP2
SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
"soonyu" wrote:

> SQL Server Spec
> SQL 2000, 8.00.2187 SP4 standard edition
> windows 2003 SP1
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.1830.00
> webserver
> windows 2003 r2, standard edition service pack2
> sqlserver driver 2000.86.3959.00
> we received "intermittance"
> Error Number -2147467259 (&H80004005)
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your
> network documentation.
> We already do this as mention in microsoft website
> on SynAttackProtect:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
> Any idea or any one have experience on this?
> Cheers,
> Liang Yew

[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your network do

Hello all,

We have a Windows 2003 Web Edition server serving a site through IIS. It connects to a Windows 2003 Standard Edition server running SQL 2000 SP3a.

This site receives the following error as seen in the topic:
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionRead (recv()).]General network error. Check your network documentation.

We've configured the server network utility to only allow TCP/IP connections. The connection string for the site is as follows:

<%
' FileName="Connection_ado_conn_string.htm"
' Type="ADO"
' HTTP="false"
' Catalog=""
' Schema=""
MM_connSpankMSSQL_STRING = "Provider=sqloledb;Data Source=SERVER_IP,1433;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Initial Catalog=ourmaindb_1;User ID=ourmaindb_1;Password=hotcookies;"
%>

Any ideas or tips on solving this issue? We've noticed it is due to larger queries as smaller ones do work with no problems.

The servers are behind a BSD box running iptables, has 1433,1434 along with standard web ports wide open. Anything outbound is allowed.

Some further testing via ODBC on the IIS server improved things. No more connection pooling for the SQL Server driver allows for 1/3 of the query to run. Still 2/3s of it doesn't show up, and that general network error message appears.

Should have 330 rows if it works right.See if this webcast can help you any:

http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/webcasts/seminar/shared/asp/view.asp?url=/servicedesks/webcasts/en/WC072804/manifest.xml

[cross-column & cross-row consistency]Transaction Consistency In Sql server 2005 sp2.

(The previous edition of this post has some written errors
which can make what I say unclear .Now those written errors are correctd.)

[cross-column & cross-row consistency]
Transaction Consistency In Sql server 2005 sp2.

How are cross-column and cross-row consistency in SQL SERVER 2000/2005?

Now there is a table named T,and its structure is as follow:
T(value , twice_value),
which means [twice_value] is twice of [value].
I filled it with some rows ,then it looks as follow:
--
value |twice_value
--
1 |2
32 |64
78 |156
--
Then I run the statement:
-
Update T
set
[value] = [value] * 2 ,
[twice_value] = [twice_value] * 2
--(In the previous edition of this post ,here the " * 2 " was fogetten)
-
At this point , towpuzzles arise into my brain:
[1].Is there some isolation leve in which
[VALUES 1] can be read possibly in some cases?

[VALUES 1]
--
value |twice_value
--
1 |2
64 |128
78 |156
--
(Note: every row is consistent,
but the table[64|128] is not consistent against the above "upate".)

[2].Is there some isolation leve in which
[VALUED 2] can be read possibly in some cases?

[VALUED 2]
--
value |twice_value
--
2 |2
32 |64
78 |156
--
(Note:the first row[2|2] it self is not consistent)

What I can make sure is that
[VALUED 1] can be read possibly in some cases when
Table T is updated by the following statement.
-
Update T
set
[value] = [value] * 2 ,
[twice_value] = [twice_value] * 2
--(In the previous edition of this post ,here the " * 2 " was fogetten)
where [value] = 32
Update T
set
[value] = [value] * 2 ,
[twice_value] = [twice_value] * 2
--(In the previous edition of this post ,here the " * 2 " was fogetten)
where not([value] = 32)
-

by the way ,

Is there Anyone that knows available e-paper about "log storage and data storage"?

|||SO EARGERLY FOR SOME ANSWERS.|||MARK|||up|||First, the update command you have listed above cannot create the values you show, since you set [twice_value]=[twice_value], unless you have a trigger setting the twice_value.

Second, the UPDATE statement creates an implicit transaction. Which means either all the records update or none of the records update and if there is a lock, it will wait for that lock to release. So there should be no possible way to create the results you describe after the query succeeds. Unless, you have something else changing the data, like a trigger.

If the isolation level was set to "READ UNCOMMITTED", a query could return what you describe, while the update was running. This is not unique to SP2.

With my corrected UPDATE statement, I cannot duplicate what you describe under any of the 3 versions of 2005, including SP2, I have or 2000 SP4, after the query has finished successfully.

Please post a duplication script of your problem.|||

As Tom Phillips already mentioned your actual scenario is not really clear. But assuming that Tom's interpretation of your question is correct (except in the part that he as far as I can see implicitly supposes that you never run the queries that observe the data in the table concurrently with the updates – but I’m not 100% sure if this time I interpret him correctly), the answers are the following:

In general when reading the row using the interfaces available through T-SQL the transactional cross-column consistency for a single row is guaranteed by the engine for all isolation levels except the READ UNCOMMITTED. One example when the cross-column consistency could be violated when using dirty reads is when certain columns are not physically stored in the row – those include off-row LOB values or the variable length non-LOB columns that were pushed off-row because they don’t fit the data page.

The cross-row consistency is a different story and in order to be absolutely certain that an arbitrary DML statement will never see inconsistent results, one should use the SERAILIZABLE isolation level. For the queries is could also be guaranteed by the SNAPSHOT isolation level. However, in your particular example of the UPDATE statement where no rows are added or deleted, the REPEATABLE READ would also guarantee both the cross-column for a single row, and the cross-row transactional consistency for the entire table for any kind of query.

|||up|||UP|||UP

@@version, add database to a named instance?

Hi,
I have a sql 2000 personal editon(default server) and developer edition
(named) installed on a machine (windowsXP).
1) if I do 'select @.@.version' in query, I always get 'personal edition'
version information back. How can I get the version nformation of developer
edition?
2)How do I use Enterprise Manager to create a database with developer editon
server instance?
THANKS!
It tells you the version of the server you are connecting to. If you want
the version of developer edition you need to connect to it first.
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977874AC-FC88-4DB2-9AA2-76095F35BABF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql 2000 personal editon(default server) and developer edition
> (named) installed on a machine (windowsXP).
> 1) if I do 'select @.@.version' in query, I always get 'personal edition'
> version information back. How can I get the version nformation of
> developer
> edition?
> 2)How do I use Enterprise Manager to create a database with developer
> editon
> server instance?
> THANKS!
|||"ME",
I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this. Thanks
!!
"ME" wrote:

> It tells you the version of the server you are connecting to. If you want
> the version of developer edition you need to connect to it first.
>
> "bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:977874AC-FC88-4DB2-9AA2-76095F35BABF@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||well, if you open Server Network Utility you should see the instance name of
your SQL Edition server. Use that instance name to connect ...
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB497B9C-D604-4F46-B65C-F898D5D99359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "ME",
> I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
> edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this.
> Thanks
> !!
> "ME" wrote:
|||Hello,
Go to the SQL Server log of the SQL Server Developer edition installation
(C:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server\Logs\ folder).
In the error log the name of the SQL Server installation will be shown. You
could use that information to either register to Enterprise manager or
connect to Query Analyzer. After that you could execute SELECT @.@.Version.
Thanks
hari
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB497B9C-D604-4F46-B65C-F898D5D99359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "ME",
> I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
> edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this.
> Thanks
> !!
> "ME" wrote:

@@version, add database to a named instance?

Hi,
I have a sql 2000 personal editon(default server) and developer edition
(named) installed on a machine (windowsXP).
1) if I do 'select @.@.version' in query, I always get 'personal edition'
version information back. How can I get the version nformation of developer
edition?
2)How do I use Enterprise Manager to create a database with developer editon
server instance?
THANKS!It tells you the version of the server you are connecting to. If you want
the version of developer edition you need to connect to it first.
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977874AC-FC88-4DB2-9AA2-76095F35BABF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a sql 2000 personal editon(default server) and developer edition
> (named) installed on a machine (windowsXP).
> 1) if I do 'select @.@.version' in query, I always get 'personal edition'
> version information back. How can I get the version nformation of
> developer
> edition?
> 2)How do I use Enterprise Manager to create a database with developer
> editon
> server instance?
> THANKS!|||"ME",
I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this. Thanks
!!
"ME" wrote:

> It tells you the version of the server you are connecting to. If you want
> the version of developer edition you need to connect to it first.
>
> "bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:977874AC-FC88-4DB2-9AA2-76095F35BABF@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||well, if you open Server Network Utility you should see the instance name of
your SQL Edition server. Use that instance name to connect ...
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB497B9C-D604-4F46-B65C-F898D5D99359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "ME",
> I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
> edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this.
> Thanks
> !!
> "ME" wrote:
>|||Hello,
Go to the SQL Server log of the SQL Server Developer edition installation
(C:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server\Logs\ folder).
In the error log the name of the SQL Server installation will be shown. You
could use that information to either register to Enterprise manager or
connect to Query Analyzer. After that you could execute SELECT @.@.Version.
Thanks
hari
"bangwo" <bangwo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB497B9C-D604-4F46-B65C-F898D5D99359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "ME",
> I couldn't find a way to 'connect' to the server instance of developer
> edition in the sql enterprise maganer. Hope you can help me on this.
> Thanks
> !!
> "ME" wrote:
>