Hi.
This is an OLAP question.
I have a dimension which is a father-son dimension.
I built the cube in analysis server.
In the analysis browser I can see the dimension fine,
I hant my reporting services report to show that dimension.
The problem is that the report won't show me that dimension in
hierarchy tree (even if I check drill down) but flatten it down.
Does some one know if report service can handle those kind of reports?
Thanks.Hi Nick,
I am having the same problem. Have you managed to get an answer? Would love
to know how to solve this.
Anusha
"nicknack" wrote:
> Hi.
> This is an OLAP question.
> I have a dimension which is a father-son dimension.
> I built the cube in analysis server.
> In the analysis browser I can see the dimension fine,
> I hant my reporting services report to show that dimension.
> The problem is that the report won't show me that dimension in
> hierarchy tree (even if I check drill down) but flatten it down.
> Does some one know if report service can handle those kind of reports?
>
> Thanks.
>|||Hi Anusha,
I did managed to get an answer.
You can't do this!
RS is not really an OLAP tool and it doesn't know how to deal with
parent-child dimension and thats why it flatten down the dimension.
Currently, I saw that there isn't any simple way to solve this.
Sorry...
Anusha =D7=9B=D7=AA=D7=91:
> Hi Nick,
> I am having the same problem. Have you managed to get an answer? Would lo=ve
> to know how to solve this.
> Anusha
> "nicknack" wrote:
> > Hi.
> > This is an OLAP question.
> >
> > I have a dimension which is a father-son dimension.
> > I built the cube in analysis server.
> > In the analysis browser I can see the dimension fine,
> >
> > I hant my reporting services report to show that dimension.
> > The problem is that the report won't show me that dimension in
> > hierarchy tree (even if I check drill down) but flatten it down.
> >
> > Does some one know if report service can handle those kind of reports?
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >|||Thanks, At least I can stop pulling my hair out!!!
Anusha
"nicknack" wrote:
> Hi Anusha,
> I did managed to get an answer.
> You can't do this!
> RS is not really an OLAP tool and it doesn't know how to deal with
> parent-child dimension and thats why it flatten down the dimension.
>
> Currently, I saw that there isn't any simple way to solve this.
> Sorry...
> Anusha ×?ת×?:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I am having the same problem. Have you managed to get an answer? Would love
> > to know how to solve this.
> >
> > Anusha
> >
> > "nicknack" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > > This is an OLAP question.
> > >
> > > I have a dimension which is a father-son dimension.
> > > I built the cube in analysis server.
> > > In the analysis browser I can see the dimension fine,
> > >
> > > I hant my reporting services report to show that dimension.
> > > The problem is that the report won't show me that dimension in
> > > hierarchy tree (even if I check drill down) but flatten it down.
> > >
> > > Does some one know if report service can handle those kind of reports?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
>sql
Showing posts with label built. Show all posts
Showing posts with label built. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
olap and hierarchy problem
Hi.
This is an OLAP question.
This is an OLAP question.
I have a dimension which is a father-son dimension.
I built the cube in analysis server.
In the analysis browser I can see the dimension fine,
I hant my reporting services report to show that dimension.
The problem is that the report won't show me that dimension in hierarchy tree (even if I check drill down) but flatten it down.
Does some one know if report service can handle those kind of reports?
Thanks.I assume the dimension is a parent-child dimension. RS is not an OLAP browser. As you have noticed, it flattens the parent-child dimenion. In this presentation download, you will find two approaches for dealing with parent-child dimensions in RS. The first one uses the RS recursive support. The second bypasses the SSAS 2005 provider in order to use straight MDX to expand the hierarchy. Needless to say, both approaches have their limitations and we can expect the support of parent-child dimensions and UDM in general to improve in future releases.|||Hi Teo,
Thanks for your replay, Its hard to find help and support for Olap and for Olap and SSRS on the net.
Its very disappointing to hear that RS does not support OLAP (and for me, if it can't handle parent-child dimension it can't handle olap).
Looks like we will have to use some other programs for working with cubes and creating reports.
Thanks for your post and I will have a look at the link you supplied to check if by any chance there is a way to work with parent-child with out any work arounds.
Regards,
Roy.|||Just to clarify. I didn't say it doesn't support OLAP. I said that it flattens the parent-child hierachies when converting them to two-dimensional datasets.|||I know you didn't - I did ("and for me, if it can't handle
parent-child dimension it can't handle olap").
I think Its a must when working with olap.
Thank for the reply :)
|||
How would you go about using OLAP with SSRS?
Do you purchase OLAP?
I've seen it used, but I know little to nothing about it.
|||You can build OLAP solutions (cubes) with analysis services and then deploy the cube to the analysis server.After that you can create a report and as a data source tell him to connect to the cube on the analysis server.
But as you can see, reporting services can really work with olap :(
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
ok to defrag hard drive volumes that sql 2000 DBs reside on?
The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mbYes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keeps
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sure
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility
>> on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
>> keeps
>> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
>> to
>> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
>> to
>> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
>> sure
>> you have a valid archive..
>> mike
>>
>> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility
>> on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb
>|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can.
>> Just make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if
>> the system is busy.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
>> keeps
>> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
>> to
>> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
>> to
>> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
>> sure
>> you have a valid archive..
>> mike
>>
>> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting
>> utility on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb
>>
>
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mbYes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keeps
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sure
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility
>> on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
>> keeps
>> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
>> to
>> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
>> to
>> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
>> sure
>> you have a valid archive..
>> mike
>>
>> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility
>> on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb
>|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can.
>> Just make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if
>> the system is busy.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
>> keeps
>> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
>> to
>> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
>> to
>> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
>> sure
>> you have a valid archive..
>> mike
>>
>> "mb" wrote:
>> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
>> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting
>> utility on
>> them to correct this? Thanks.
>> mb
>>
>
ok to defrag hard drive volumes that sql 2000 DBs reside on?
The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mb
Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keeps
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sure
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb
|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mb
Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keeps
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sure
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb
|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
ok to defrag hard drive volumes that sql 2000 DBs reside on?
The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mbYes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keep
s
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sur
e
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility o
n
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
>|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility on
them to correct this? Thanks.
mbYes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server keep
s
a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need to
shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want to
only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make sur
e
you have a valid archive..
mike
"mb" wrote:
> The volumes that host my SQL DB's are getting badly fragmented and I'm
> wondering if it's OK to run windows (2003) built in defragmeting utility o
n
> them to correct this? Thanks.
> mb|||Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
system is busy.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, however, it will not defrag the sql database files b/c sql server
> keeps
> a lock on them. If you want to degragment the entire drive, you'll need
> to
> shutdown sql server, or you can detach a particular database if you want
> to
> only defragment select files. If this box is production you should make
> sure
> you have a valid archive..
> mike
>
> "mb" wrote:
>|||"Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform necesary
maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i perform the
defrag
as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will result
in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall fragmentation ) this
will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its task and it reclaims
disk space
in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe fragmentation )
in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because of bad
administration of a database
if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
however it can never be 100% prevented
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think it will defrag it anyway. Or at least what it can. Just
> make sure you backup first and be prepared for a performance hit if the
> system is busy.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA37353-147E-4F5A-B335-5B7E50FF7691@.microsoft.com...
>|||I have spoken directly with the makers of the Defrag software and they
assure me it can be done online with the current software. That said I
always recommend you shut down first as to speed the operation and minimize
any risks and performance issues. You should only have to defrag your files
at the OS level once. Once you defrag them they will not get fragmented at
the OS level again unless you constantly shrink and grow the files. You
should essentially never shrink your data files.
> what I personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
By growing and later shrinking the files you cause fragmentation at the OS
level.
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
Of coarse shrinking results in less overall space used but you totally
destroy the work you just did by reindexing. When you reindex an index sql
server will recreate the indexes (this is the data too for a clustered
index) in another area of the data file. This means you need at least 1.2
times the amount of the index size in free space in the file. If you don't
have it (which you wont since you keep shrinking the file) it will expand
the file. It then places the newly defragmented indexes at the end of the
file since that is where all the free space is. It then drops the original
indexes at the beginning of the file leaving free space. This is normal and
expected. But if you go and shrink the file you will move the indexes that
were all nicely built and contiguous at the end of the file to the beginning
since it has to shrink from the end of the file inwards. Well when it moves
the indexes it does it in small pieces and you usually end up with indexes
that are fragmented again since they will no longer be contiguous. All of
that data movement is fully logged as well.
So by shrinking your db you basically destroy all that hard work you did
earlier by defragging at the OS and internally with DBREINDEX.
TURN OFF THE SHRINK and life will be much better. Your db needs plenty of
free space to operate properly and there is no penalty for too much free
space.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"m.posseth" <michelp@.nohausystems.nl> wrote in message
news:%231pcDPeiFHA.3288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Inside SQL server" ( MS Press ) says shutdown sql server or detach
> databases then perfom the defrag ( as the files will be locked by sql )
> what i personally do is the following , after my backup i perform
> necesary maintenance on my database ( reindexing , shrinking ) then i
> perform the defrag
> as you will notice that reindexing and shrinking after a backup will
> result in a smaller database size ( as this solves internall
> fragmentation ) this will limit the time that defrag needs to perform its
> task and it reclaims disk space
> in my situation with a disk of + - 800 GB this takes + - 3 Hours
> Dell poweredge 4600 , 2.8 dual XEON with 6 GB mem on Windows 2000
> advanced , SQL 2000 enterprise ( with PAE and AWE extensions enabled )
> I perform this task only when necessary ( if i see a hughe
> ragmentation ) in my personal opinion hughe fragmentation occurs because
> of bad administration of a database
> if you have a good start size of your db while creating it ( if you expect
> it to grow in the near future to 3 gb create it with that amount of
> diskspace already ) and a good autogrow strategy for the DB and log
> then fragmentation is sized down to a minimum .
> however it can never be 100% prevented
> regards
> Michel Posseth [MCP]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkLAKpWiFHA.1416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
Monday, March 26, 2012
Offline cube cannot open
I built a cube by Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services and deploy into the server. The deployment was successful. I extract the cube by Microsoft Excel 2007 to view data. That also successful. Then I built an offline cube from there. I can successfully create the offline cube. And store into a thumb drive and open the offline cube by another pc through microsoft excel 2007/2003 both. I cannot open the offline cube and got the error as 'This datasource contains no visible tables'... and in another pc, it is asking the log in credentials.
The offline cube is disconnected from the datasource and can open anywhere else right? Then how can I got all these issues? Please help me on this. Thanks.
> The offline cube is disconnected from the datasource and can open anywhere else right?
Yes, the offline cube is disconnected from the relational data source, unless you have ROLAP cubes or partitions.
Adrian
If the storage mode is ROLAP for your cube or a partition or dimension that you will query from Excel, then you will need to have access to the relational data. To solve this, use the MOLAP storage mode. To check what storage mode you have, use either SQL Management Studio or BI Development Studio. With SQL Management Studio, use the properties dialogs to check each dimension, cube and partition. With BI Development Studio, connect to the database in online mode (File -> Open -> Analysis Services Database).
Adrian
|||Thanks Adrian for your reply. I checked the partitions in my cube. It is already in MOLAP storage mode. I am not using the ROLAP so far. Any further ideas...?
|||
grmohan68 wrote:
Thanks Adrian for your reply. I checked the partitions in my cube. It is already in MOLAP storage mode. I am not using the ROLAP so far. Any further ideas...?
Offline cube cannot open
I built a cube by Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services and deploy into the server. The deployment was successful. I extract the cube by Microsoft Excel 2007 to view data. That also successful. Then I built an offline cube from there. I can successfully create the offline cube. And store into a thumb drive and open the offline cube by another pc through microsoft excel 2007/2003 both. I cannot open the offline cube and got the error as 'This datasource contains no visible tables'... and in another pc, it is asking the log in credentials.
The offline cube is disconnected from the datasource and can open anywhere else right? Then how can I got all these issues? Please help me on this. Thanks.
> The offline cube is disconnected from the datasource and can open anywhere else right?
Yes, the offline cube is disconnected from the relational data source, unless you have ROLAP cubes or partitions.
Adrian
If the storage mode is ROLAP for your cube or a partition or dimension that you will query from Excel, then you will need to have access to the relational data. To solve this, use the MOLAP storage mode. To check what storage mode you have, use either SQL Management Studio or BI Development Studio. With SQL Management Studio, use the properties dialogs to check each dimension, cube and partition. With BI Development Studio, connect to the database in online mode (File -> Open -> Analysis Services Database).
Adrian
|||Thanks Adrian for your reply. I checked the partitions in my cube. It is already in MOLAP storage mode. I am not using the ROLAP so far. Any further ideas...?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Office Document Properties
If I use the Indexing Services built into the OS, I can query the office
doc properties (title, author etc).
Is it possible to do this if I have an office doc stored in an Image field
that is full-text indexed ?
Steve
It is possible in SQL 2005 - however you can't query for a specific
properties' value. IE I could not query to see if the DocAuthor property was
SteveW, but rather I could query to see if SteveW occurred in the content or
any of the document properties.
AS you are familiar with indexing Services the analog is the ALL property.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Steve W" <BunnyBoy123@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:enEwUtxBGHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> If I use the Indexing Services built into the OS, I can query the office
> doc properties (title, author etc).
> Is it possible to do this if I have an office doc stored in an Image field
> that is full-text indexed ?
> Steve
>
doc properties (title, author etc).
Is it possible to do this if I have an office doc stored in an Image field
that is full-text indexed ?
Steve
It is possible in SQL 2005 - however you can't query for a specific
properties' value. IE I could not query to see if the DocAuthor property was
SteveW, but rather I could query to see if SteveW occurred in the content or
any of the document properties.
AS you are familiar with indexing Services the analog is the ALL property.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Steve W" <BunnyBoy123@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:enEwUtxBGHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> If I use the Indexing Services built into the OS, I can query the office
> doc properties (title, author etc).
> Is it possible to do this if I have an office doc stored in an Image field
> that is full-text indexed ?
> Steve
>
Monday, March 19, 2012
Odd behavior (Pagebreaks & Visibility)
I built a report, that displays several Subreports. Then a request came, if it wouldn't be possible, to build a switch to turn on/off a page break after each report.
Since RS doesn't support a fexible page break controlling (you can either set or not set a page break hardcoded), I got an idea for a workaround:
After my Subreport I put a rectangle with a page break. Now every Subreport was displayed on a separate page.
Then I set the visibility for the rectangle to "hidded" and as expected, there was no page break after each subreport.
So far, so good. I then created a boolean parameter and set the Visibility expression to:
=Not Parameters!PageBreakAfterEachReport.Value
Now here comes the strange thing: If the Parameter is false, the rectangle is not displayed and therefor there is no page break, BUT, if the parameter is true, the rectangle is displayed correctly but there is STILL NO page break!!!?!?!!?!?
Why does the page break work, when I set the visibility hardcoded, but not when I try to control it via a parameter & expression?
I'm having the same issue here. If my control's visibility is dynamic, the pagebreaks do not work correctly. Is there any resolution/workaround to this problem?|||Hi,
You could load the xml generated in XmlDocument and then using Xpath select the pagebreak element. Set this element dynamically.
Regards,
Alok
|||Folks, I don't know if it is going to make you feel better or not, but apparently this behavior is "currently by design" -- at least I think that what is described in this thread is the same as what you are discussing.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=672379&SiteID=1
Actually (editing this post) now that I think about it, I may already have worked out a workaround that will work for this situation. Let me know what you think.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1682115&SiteID=1
In that post, I included a special dummy group and used a boolean parameter to determine the conditional page break. In your case, rather than the parameter, your condition would be something "if my other thing isn't visible, do this page break".
Hope this makes sense...
>L<
Odd behavior (Pagebreaks & Visibility)
I built a report, that displays several Subreports. Then a request came, if it wouldn't be possible, to build a switch to turn on/off a page break after each report.
Since RS doesn't support a fexible page break controlling (you can either set or not set a page break hardcoded), I got an idea for a workaround:
After my Subreport I put a rectangle with a page break. Now every Subreport was displayed on a separate page.
Then I set the visibility for the rectangle to "hidded" and as expected, there was no page break after each subreport.
So far, so good. I then created a boolean parameter and set the Visibility expression to:
=Not Parameters!PageBreakAfterEachReport.Value
Now here comes the strange thing: If the Parameter is false, the rectangle is not displayed and therefor there is no page break, BUT, if the parameter is true, the rectangle is displayed correctly but there is STILL NO page break!!!?!?!!?!?
Why does the page break work, when I set the visibility hardcoded, but not when I try to control it via a parameter & expression?
I'm having the same issue here. If my control's visibility is dynamic, the pagebreaks do not work correctly. Is there any resolution/workaround to this problem?|||Hi,
You could load the xml generated in XmlDocument and then using Xpath select the pagebreak element. Set this element dynamically.
Regards,
Alok
|||Folks, I don't know if it is going to make you feel better or not, but apparently this behavior is "currently by design" -- at least I think that what is described in this thread is the same as what you are discussing.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=672379&SiteID=1
Actually (editing this post) now that I think about it, I may already have worked out a workaround that will work for this situation. Let me know what you think.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1682115&SiteID=1
In that post, I included a special dummy group and used a boolean parameter to determine the conditional page break. In your case, rather than the parameter, your condition would be something "if my other thing isn't visible, do this page break".
Hope this makes sense...
>L<
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)