Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Problems with the VS2005 IDE

I have installed VS2005 MSDN-final, SQL2005, SQL2005 EXPRESS

The problems I have are two

1. I can't add a new sql Database to my windows project due to an error about not being able to start a user instance

2. After I create a new database in SQLExpress, then the datasources window doesnot show the datasource I have created when if form designer view
Any suggestions please

SQLExpress instances must be referenced using its named instance localhost\SQLEXPRESS. If you are doing that then your ok.

Also, make sure the sql services are started.

The datasources window probably only shows you database information that you have configured it for. You would most like have to create a new datasource to see the other database. The datasources is not like the Server Explorer in VS.NET 2003

-HTH|||What I meant Is that the datasources window is disabled when IDE loads the form view designer

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Problems with Sql2k install on Windows 2K3 server std

After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it dies
about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write" however
it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the SQL
Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
Any Ideas
Thanks
Simon
> After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it
dies
> about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write"
however
> it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the
SQL
> Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
> Any Ideas
> Thanks
> Simon
You may not have sufficient privileges on the machine to complete the
install. You can use Regmon and Filemon to figure out where the install is
failing. These tools are available from http://www.sysinternals.com.
Hope this helps,
Eric Crdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Problems with Sql2k install on Windows 2K3 server std

After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it die
s
about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write" however
it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the SQL
Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
Any Ideas
Thanks
Simon> After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it
dies
> about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write"
however
> it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the
SQL
> Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
> Any Ideas
> Thanks
> Simon
--
You may not have sufficient privileges on the machine to complete the
install. You can use Regmon and Filemon to figure out where the install is
failing. These tools are available from http://www.sysinternals.com.
Hope this helps,
Eric Crdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Problems with Sql2k install on Windows 2K3 server std

After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it dies
about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write" however
it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the SQL
Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
Any Ideas
Thanks
Simon> After installing SQL on a Windows 2003 server I try to apply Sp3a but it
dies
> about 10% into the install Saying a file "cannot be open as write"
however
> it's a different file each time. Then after the SP fails it trashers the
SQL
> Install so that non of the services will run anymore.
> Any Ideas
> Thanks
> Simon
--
You may not have sufficient privileges on the machine to complete the
install. You can use Regmon and Filemon to figure out where the install is
failing. These tools are available from http://www.sysinternals.com.
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.sql

Problems with sql server 2005 linked servers

I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
Server security.
For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
run the exact same query I get the following error:
Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
error. Access denied.
Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
for linked server "AS400".
My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
tell.What is the configuration for the security mappings on the
linked server?
-Sue
On 12 Sep 2006 13:17:32 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
wrote:

>I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
>I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
>correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
>Server security.
>For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
>If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
>run the exact same query I get the following error:
>Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
>error. Access denied.
>Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
>for linked server "AS400".
>
>My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
>tell.|||The linked server is set to use an as400 userid/password for every
connection.
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> What is the configuration for the security mappings on the
> linked server?
> -Sue
> On 12 Sep 2006 13:17:32 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>|||Okay...the first thing you'd want to try is to make sure you
have Allow In Process option enabled for the provider.
That may not do it though. The other thing to try after that
would be to enable delegation for the Windows domain
account.
-Sue
On 14 Sep 2006 12:42:22 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The linked server is set to use an as400 userid/password for every
>connection.
>Sue Hoegemeier wrote:

Problems with sql server 2005 linked servers

I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
Server security.
For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
run the exact same query I get the following error:
Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
error. Access denied.
Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
for linked server "AS400".
My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
tell.What is the configuration for the security mappings on the
linked server?
-Sue
On 12 Sep 2006 13:17:32 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
wrote:
>I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
>I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
>correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
>Server security.
>For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
>If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
>run the exact same query I get the following error:
>Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
>error. Access denied.
>Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
>for linked server "AS400".
>
>My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
>tell.|||The linked server is set to use an as400 userid/password for every
connection.
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> What is the configuration for the security mappings on the
> linked server?
> -Sue
> On 12 Sep 2006 13:17:32 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
> >I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
> >correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
> >Server security.
> >For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
> >If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
> >run the exact same query I get the following error:
> >
> >Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> >The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
> >error. Access denied.
> >Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
> >Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
> >for linked server "AS400".
> >
> >
> >My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
> >tell.|||Okay...the first thing you'd want to try is to make sure you
have Allow In Process option enabled for the provider.
That may not do it though. The other thing to try after that
would be to enable delegation for the Windows domain
account.
-Sue
On 14 Sep 2006 12:42:22 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
wrote:
>The linked server is set to use an as400 userid/password for every
>connection.
>Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
>> What is the configuration for the security mappings on the
>> linked server?
>> -Sue
>> On 12 Sep 2006 13:17:32 -0700, "EagleGT" <a016691@.gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I have just installed Sql Server 2005 SP1 on Windows 2003 SP1
>> >I have set up several linked servers to our AS400 and they work
>> >correctly as long as I am connected to the database as "sa" via Sql
>> >Server security.
>> >For example I can run queries against the AS400 tables with no problem.
>> >If I connect to the database using Windows Authentication and try to
>> >run the exact same query I get the following error:
>> >
>> >Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>> >The OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400" for linked server "AS400" reported an
>> >error. Access denied.
>> >Msg 7350, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>> >Cannot get the column information from OLE DB provider "HiTOLEDB400"
>> >for linked server "AS400".
>> >
>> >
>> >My Windows login is setup the same as the "sa" login as far as I can
>> >tell.

Problems with SQL mail

I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
following message.
Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user. I
have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
several times too.
thanks
Gav
SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net. ..
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>
|||You have to log into the server as the SQL Server service account and use
the Control Panel Mail properties to configure a mail profile. Then you
have to launch Outlook for the first time to get through all of the initial
dialogue.
As far as xpsmtp is concerned, that's great but can't be used by SQL Agent
mail. So, you have no alerts and no job status reports unless you hand code
EVERYTHING.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net. ..
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>
|||If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your XXX" problem with SQL
Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I deal
with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90% reliability.
We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of the
email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL Mail
Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production issues
have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't recommend
the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
> stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
> XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
> is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
> things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
> "notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
> failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
> parameters.
> --
> Keith
>
> "Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
> news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net. ..
> I
>
|||Microsoft must be aware of the problems with the current implementation of
SQLMail.
SQLiMail is slated be included within the next version of SQLServer. Here
are a few links:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com.../tnt1-133.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...wsqlagent.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...l/SQL0113.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...l/sql1209.mspx
Keith
"cw" <cwilson@.3mc.com> wrote in message
news:OfHtdr8KFHA.4092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your XXX" problem with SQL
> Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
> and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I
deal
> with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90%
reliability.
> We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of
the
> email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
> server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
> changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL
Mail
> Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
> etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
> scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production
issues
> have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
> flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't
recommend
> the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
> I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
> I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
> notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.
sql

Problems with SQL mail

I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
following message.
Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user. I
have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
several times too.
thanks
GavSQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>|||You have to log into the server as the SQL Server service account and use
the Control Panel Mail properties to configure a mail profile. Then you
have to launch Outlook for the first time to get through all of the initial
dialogue.
As far as xpsmtp is concerned, that's great but can't be used by SQL Agent
mail. So, you have no alerts and no job status reports unless you hand code
EVERYTHING.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>|||If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your XXX" problem with SQL
Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I deal
with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90% reliability.
We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of the
email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL Mail
Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production issues
have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't recommend
the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
> stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
> XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
> is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
> things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
> "notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
> failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
> parameters.
> --
> Keith
>
> "Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
> news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I
>|||Microsoft must be aware of the problems with the current implementation of
SQLMail.
SQLiMail is slated be included within the next version of SQLServer. Here
are a few links:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/co...5/tnt1-133.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...ql/SQL0113.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/co...ql/sql1209.mspx
Keith
"cw" <cwilson@.3mc.com> wrote in message
news:OfHtdr8KFHA.4092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your XXX" problem with SQL
> Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
> and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I
deal
> with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90%
reliability.
> We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of
the
> email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
> server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
> changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL
Mail
> Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
> etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
> scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production
issues
> have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
> flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't
recommend
> the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
> I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
> I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
> notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.

Problems with SQL mail

I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
following message.
Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user. I
have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
several times too.
thanks
GavSQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
--
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>|||You have to log into the server as the SQL Server service account and use
the Control Panel Mail properties to configure a mail profile. Then you
have to launch Outlook for the first time to get through all of the initial
dialogue.
As far as xpsmtp is concerned, that's great but can't be used by SQL Agent
mail. So, you have no alerts and no job status reports unless you hand code
EVERYTHING.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
"notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
parameters.
--
Keith
"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting the
> following message.
> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
I
> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the server
> several times too.
> thanks
> Gav
>|||If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your ass" problem with SQL
Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I deal
with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90% reliability.
We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of the
email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL Mail
Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production issues
have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't recommend
the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eW7SCzuKFHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Mail can be a real bear to get working. I have not used it since I
> stumbled upon XPSMTP -- http://sqldev.net/xp/xpsmtp.htm
> XPSMTP does not have the "plug and play" behavior that SQL Mail has but it
> is very powerful and it just works. By plug and play I am referring to
> things like automated job failure notification. Instead of clicking on
> "notify operator on error" you have to create a job step that you call on
> failure. The job step will call xp_smtp_sendmail with the appropriate
> parameters.
> --
> Keith
>
> "Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@.nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
> news:d1bip6$rtu$1@.newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
>> I have just setup a Windows 2003 Server with SQL 2000 (sp 3a) and Outlook
>> 2000. I am trying to get SQL Mail working on this box but keep getting
>> the
>> following message.
>> Error 18025: xp_test_mapi_profile : failed with mail error 0x80040111
>> I used to have this setup on a Windows 2000 Server box and it worked spot
>> on. Can anybody offer any advice? I have logged in as the user the SQL
>> services run as and setup a mail profile, e-mail works fine as this user.
> I
>> have also tried Outlook 2002 and got the same message. Rebooted the
>> server
>> several times too.
>> thanks
>> Gav
>>
>|||Microsoft must be aware of the problems with the current implementation of
SQLMail.
SQLiMail is slated be included within the next version of SQLServer. Here
are a few links:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/events/sql2005/tnt1-133.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/evaluate/newsqlagent.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/sql/SQL0113.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/sql/sql1209.mspx
--
Keith
"cw" <cwilson@.3mc.com> wrote in message
news:OfHtdr8KFHA.4092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If Microsoft would like to work on a "thorn in your ass" problem with SQL
> Server I vote for SQL Mail. I've had problems with SQL Mail since day one
> and it should be a no brainer. I had mine set up on the SQL Servers I
deal
> with and after many hours finally got it to work with about 90%
reliability.
> We recently upgraded our Exchange server to 2003 and changed the name of
the
> email server, but now SQL Mail does NOT work. I can log in to the SQL
> server under the domain account the service is running under, make the
> changes to the Outlook client, send emails, get all the cute little SQL
Mail
> Test buttons to work, actually send an email using xp_sendmail, etc, etc,
> etc but when it comes to "needing" it to work, it does not. All my
> scheduled jobs and all the alerts I have set to notify of production
issues
> have yet to work. When I stop the SQL Agent service and restart it, I get
> flooded with all the emails that should have been sent. I wouldn't
recommend
> the MAPI SQL Mail to anyone.
> I've recently installed the xpsmtp on the servers and it works EVERY time.
> I'm making the changes to all the processes I would like to have an email
> notification from to use the smtp email - it's a pain, but it's reliable.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Problems with SQL 2000 with SP3

I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is partitioned
into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems my
RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover the
hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
following errors in event viewer:
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
17052 :
Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
18052 :
Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this working.
ThanksHave you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
what you have backups for anyway...
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is
>partitioned
> into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
> second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
> RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems
> my
> RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover
> the
> hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
> Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
> following errors in event viewer:
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 17052 :
> Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 18052 :
> Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
> everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this
> working.
> Thanks
>|||From the error messages that I listed and the problem I have described, what
do you think happened? Was it the master database? Can't figure out why
the service will not start. Looks like all the data is there.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is
> >partitioned
> > into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
> > second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have
seperate
> > RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems
> > my
> > RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover
> > the
> > hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
> > Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
> > following errors in event viewer:
> >
> > Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
> >
> > Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Description:
> > 18052 :
> > Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> >
> > Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
> > everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this
> > working.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||Also, would there be a nice KB article describing SQL restore operations.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is
> >partitioned
> > into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
> > second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have
seperate
> > RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems
> > my
> > RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover
> > the
> > hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
> > Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
> > following errors in event viewer:
> >
> > Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
> >
> > Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Description:
> > 18052 :
> > Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> >
> > Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
> > everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this
> > working.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||Hi Allison,
Based on my experience, the error "Cannot recovery the master database"
always indicates the master database is corrupted. In this cause, it is
suspected the corruption of the master database is caused by the hardware
failure. Unfortunately since this is critical error on master, not much can
be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
1. Copy all the mdf and LDF to another location as a backup and verify that
a good backup exists.
2. Rebuild a new master database using Rebuild master utility. Note:
Rebuilding the master database removes all database objects and data. For
more information regarding Rebuild master utility, please refer to the
following articles.
How to rebuild the master database (Rebuild Master utility)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht
_install_8w8p.asp
Rebuild master Utility
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/coprompt/cp
_rebuildm_6dbt.asp
3. To verify that the rebuild is successful, start SQL Server normally
4. Restore the master database from your old backup.
5. Reattach all the databases
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||> be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
> empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring all
the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs? This
rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
is probably the best thing to do anyway...
A|||Well, I think everything is working again. I uninstalled SQL 2000 and
reinstalled it with the same directory structure. At that same time, I kept
all 100 of my user databases in the same folder, therefore I didn't have to
restore over all of them. I then went into single-user mode and restore
only the master database. Once the master database restored, it
automatically attached to all 100 databases to SQL. I then exited
single-user mode, restarted the SQL service, and accessed my front-end
program. Everything looked good. I could access my databases and query
them. I'm still kind of suspicious because it wasn't as bad as I thought.
Hopefully I did it right.
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:OLKcm$PIEHA.3248@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on
some
> > empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
> How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring
all
> the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
> master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs?
This
> rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
> is probably the best thing to do anyway...
> A
>

Problems with SQL 2000 with SP3

I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is partitioned
into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems my
RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover the
hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
following errors in event viewer:
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
17052 :
Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
18052 :
Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this working.
ThanksHave you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
what you have backups for anyway...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is
>partitioned
> into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
> second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
> RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems
> my
> RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover
> the
> hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
> Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
> following errors in event viewer:
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 17052 :
> Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 18052 :
> Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
> everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this
> working.
> Thanks
>|||From the error messages that I listed and the problem I have described, what
do you think happened? Was it the master database? Can't figure out why
the service will not start. Looks like all the data is there.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
seperate
>|||Also, would there be a nice KB article describing SQL restore operations.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
seperate
>|||Hi Allison,
Based on my experience, the error "Cannot recovery the master database"
always indicates the master database is corrupted. In this cause, it is
suspected the corruption of the master database is caused by the hardware
failure. Unfortunately since this is critical error on master, not much can
be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
1. Copy all the mdf and LDF to another location as a backup and verify that
a good backup exists.
2. Rebuild a new master database using Rebuild master utility. Note:
Rebuilding the master database removes all database objects and data. For
more information regarding Rebuild master utility, please refer to the
following articles.
How to rebuild the master database (Rebuild Master utility)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/howtosql/ht
_install_8w8p.asp
Rebuild master Utility
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/coprompt/cp
_rebuildm_6dbt.asp
3. To verify that the rebuild is successful, start SQL Server normally
4. Restore the master database from your old backup.
5. Reattach all the databases
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||> be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
> empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring all
the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs? This
rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
is probably the best thing to do anyway...
A|||Well, I think everything is working again. I uninstalled SQL 2000 and
reinstalled it with the same directory structure. At that same time, I kept
all 100 of my user databases in the same folder, therefore I didn't have to
restore over all of them. I then went into single-user mode and restore
only the master database. Once the master database restored, it
automatically attached to all 100 databases to SQL. I then exited
single-user mode, restarted the SQL service, and accessed my front-end
program. Everything looked good. I could access my databases and query
them. I'm still kind of suspicious because it wasn't as bad as I thought.
Hopefully I did it right.
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:OLKcm$PIEHA.3248@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
some
> How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring
all
> the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
> master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs?
This
> rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
> is probably the best thing to do anyway...
> A
>

Problems with SQL 2000 with SP3

I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is partitioned
into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems my
RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover the
hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
following errors in event viewer:
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
17052 :
Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
Source: MSSQLSERVER
Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Description:
18052 :
Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this working.
Thanks
Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
what you have backups for anyway...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a Windows 2000 Server with SQL 2000 SP3 installed. It is
>partitioned
> into to seperate logical drives. The first partition is the OS and the
> second partition is SQL and its databases. Both partitions have seperate
> RAID controllers and drives associated with it. I recently had problems
> my
> RAID controller relating to the second partition. I was able to recover
> the
> hardware failure and can still read the SQL partition and its data.
> Unfortunately, I cannot get the SQL service to start anymore. I get the
> following errors in event viewer:
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 17052 :
> Cannot recover the master database. Exiting.
> Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Description:
> 18052 :
> Error: 9003, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> Cannot anyone get me started on what I need to do? I have a backup of
> everything but I didn't know if their was an easier way to get this
> working.
> Thanks
>
|||From the error messages that I listed and the problem I have described, what
do you think happened? Was it the master database? Can't figure out why
the service will not start. Looks like all the data is there.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
seperate
>
|||Also, would there be a nice KB article describing SQL restore operations.
Thanks
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%23qOL$oJIEHA.3144@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Have you considered uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server completely?
> Then it should just be a matter of restoring your user databases, which is
> what you have backups for anyway...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>
> "Allison" <no@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW3RaJIEHA.3848@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
seperate
>
|||Hi Allison,
Based on my experience, the error "Cannot recovery the master database"
always indicates the master database is corrupted. In this cause, it is
suspected the corruption of the master database is caused by the hardware
failure. Unfortunately since this is critical error on master, not much can
be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
1. Copy all the mdf and LDF to another location as a backup and verify that
a good backup exists.
2. Rebuild a new master database using Rebuild master utility. Note:
Rebuilding the master database removes all database objects and data. For
more information regarding Rebuild master utility, please refer to the
following articles.
How to rebuild the master database (Rebuild Master utility)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/howtosql/ht
_install_8w8p.asp
Rebuild master Utility
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/coprompt/cp
_rebuildm_6dbt.asp
3. To verify that the rebuild is successful, start SQL Server normally
4. Restore the master database from your old backup.
5. Reattach all the databases
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||> be done. Only possible thing we can do is creating similar master on some
> empty device and load the old GOOD master backup and go from there.
How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring all
the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs? This
rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
is probably the best thing to do anyway...
A
|||Well, I think everything is working again. I uninstalled SQL 2000 and
reinstalled it with the same directory structure. At that same time, I kept
all 100 of my user databases in the same folder, therefore I didn't have to
restore over all of them. I then went into single-user mode and restore
only the master database. Once the master database restored, it
automatically attached to all 100 databases to SQL. I then exited
single-user mode, restarted the SQL service, and accessed my front-end
program. Everything looked good. I could access my databases and query
them. I'm still kind of suspicious because it wasn't as bad as I thought.
Hopefully I did it right.
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:OLKcm$PIEHA.3248@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=darkblue]
some
> How about just uninstalling SQL Server and reinstalling, then restoring
all
> the *good* backups of the user databases? Surely we don't need that old
> master database if we have acceptable backups of all the existing DBs?
This
> rebuild/re-attach process seems like far too much work, when a clean start
> is probably the best thing to do anyway...
> A
>

Problems with services not starting

We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used
to start the services simply fail to run; they simply don't kick-in.
It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the job
s don't run. It would be similar to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) s
ervice not being started which would mean that any tasks / jobs not being ru
n.
There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else.
something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the pro
cess of a domain migration to Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where s
ome of our 6.5 servers have not been migrated to the new domain and are on t
he old Windows NT domain. T
wo 6.5 server that have been migrated to the new Windows 2000 domain do not
exhibit these problems.
Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated.
Peter ApostolakopoulosPeter,
I thing you have better chance to get good suggestion in a NT/Windows forum
for this. It is probably something
with the scheduler service, possibly related to the service account.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Apostolakopoulos" <apostolp@.britannic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6C55044B-35C1-40A5-86C1-B11698950444@.microsoft.com...
> We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used to sta
rt the services simply
fail to run; they simply don't kick-in.
> It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the jobs don'
t run. It would be similar
to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) service not being started which wo
uld mean that any tasks / jobs not
being run.
> There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else.
> something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the process o
f a domain migration to
Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where some of our 6.5 servers have no
t been migrated to the new domain
and are on the old Windows NT domain. Two 6.5 server that have been migrated
to the new Windows 2000 domain do
not exhibit these problems.
> Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated.
> Peter Apostolakopoulos|||Good idea Tibor.
Thanks,
Peter Apostolakopoulos

Problems with services not starting

We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used to start the services simply fail to run; they simply don't kick-in
It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the jobs don't run. It would be similar to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) service not being started which would mean that any tasks / jobs not being run
There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else
something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the process of a domain migration to Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where some of our 6.5 servers have not been migrated to the new domain and are on the old Windows NT domain. Two 6.5 server that have been migrated to the new Windows 2000 domain do not exhibit these problems
Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated
Peter ApostolakopoulosPeter,
I thing you have better chance to get good suggestion in a NT/Windows forum for this. It is probably something
with the scheduler service, possibly related to the service account.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Apostolakopoulos" <apostolp@.britannic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6C55044B-35C1-40A5-86C1-B11698950444@.microsoft.com...
> We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used to start the services simply
fail to run; they simply don't kick-in.
> It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the jobs don't run. It would be similar
to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) service not being started which would mean that any tasks / jobs not
being run.
> There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else.
> something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the process of a domain migration to
Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where some of our 6.5 servers have not been migrated to the new domain
and are on the old Windows NT domain. Two 6.5 server that have been migrated to the new Windows 2000 domain do
not exhibit these problems.
> Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated.
> Peter Apostolakopoulos|||Good idea Tibor
Thanks
Peter Apostolakopoulos

Problems with services not starting

We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used to start the services simply fail to run; they simply don't kick-in.
It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the jobs don't run. It would be similar to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) service not being started which would mean that any tasks / jobs not being run.
There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else.
something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the process of a domain migration to Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where some of our 6.5 servers have not been migrated to the new domain and are on the old Windows NT domain. T
wo 6.5 server that have been migrated to the new Windows 2000 domain do not exhibit these problems.
Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated.
Peter Apostolakopoulos
Peter,
I thing you have better chance to get good suggestion in a NT/Windows forum for this. It is probably something
with the scheduler service, possibly related to the service account.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Peter Apostolakopoulos" <apostolp@.britannic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6C55044B-35C1-40A5-86C1-B11698950444@.microsoft.com...
> We have a number of 6.5 servers on Windows NT and recently the AT jobs used to start the services simply
fail to run; they simply don't kick-in.
> It is as if the internal Windows scheduler isn't running and as such the jobs don't run. It would be similar
to the SQLExecutive (or SQLServer Agent ) service not being started which would mean that any tasks / jobs not
being run.
> There is nothing in the Event logs or anywhere else.
> something that I don't believe is a coincidence: we are currently in the process of a domain migration to
Windows 2000 and we are in a situation where some of our 6.5 servers have not been migrated to the new domain
and are on the old Windows NT domain. Two 6.5 server that have been migrated to the new Windows 2000 domain do
not exhibit these problems.
> Any ideas as to were I could look for this would be greatly appreciated.
> Peter Apostolakopoulos
|||Good idea Tibor.
Thanks,
Peter Apostolakopoulos
sql

Friday, March 23, 2012

Problems with reporting

Hi,
I am testing MS reporting on VS 2005 Beta2 with the report file (.rdlc) embedded in a Windows application (no server involved).
Previewing the report works fine, but if I want to print it, I apparently must first
click on the print preview icon in the viewer's toolbar and then click on the print icon.
I believe that one should be able to print a report without showing the form containing the viewer; but is there at least a way of forcing the viewer into the print preview state by means of code?
Will something change in this respect in the delivery version?

One more question: is the version of Crystal Reports bundled in VS capable of building a report based on business objects? I could not find any way of performing this task.

Thanks

ReportViewer has SetDisplayMode () method that can be used to switch between Normal and PrintPreview modes.

|||

Hi Lev,
the SetDisplayMode method does not exist in the version of VS2005 I am using (Beta2.050215.4400).
Do you have a newer version?

|||

You can download the Release Candidate of Visual Studio 2005 via MSDN Subscriber Downloads.

Problems with remote SQL 2005 server and excel as an input source

Hello,

I am trying to write my first couple Integration Services packages using SQL 2005. My configuration is a workstation running windows xp professional, and a windows 2003 server that is running the SQL server.

Anytime I run a package that accesses the remote server from my workstation, the job fails with an error code. The workstation cannot seem to run a package to load data to the remote sql server. Why is this? Is there a service pack, or hotfix coming out soon to correct this problem?

Additionally, I also seem to be unable to update a database using excel as the data source from which information should be used. If I import my excel spreadsheet into an access table, I can update the sql database from Access using integration services. Why can't I use an excel spreadsheet as the source? Is there a a service pack or hotfix coming out soon for 2005 sql that will correct this problem?

Thanks!

Jim

I've been able to input an excel spreadsheet in the dataflow and then use an Oracle destination to update an oracle table - what errors are you getting?|||

Jim R wrote:

Is there a a service pack or hotfix coming out soon for 2005 sql that will correct this problem?

It would help if you told us what the problem was before anyone answers that question.

What errors are you getting?

|||What destination transform are you using?

If you are using the SQL Server Destination, then the package must run

on the destination server. The SQL Destination inserts data much

more efficiently than the OLE Destination.

If you are using the OLE DB Destination, then please post the error message you are receiving so that we help you debug.

Larry|||

I am using an SQL destination, but I don't understand why the package must run on the destination server for SQL server? That was never a requirement before with sql 2000's DTS services... Shouldn't I be able to develop, test, and even deploy packages to other servers?

Speaking of deploying. Once I have a package developed, how can I run it on the server machine? I don't intend to install the visual studio, etc. on the server....

Jim

|||

Jim,

the SQL Server desination is a special destination adapter for LOCAL SQL Servers only... If you want to connect to remote servers you have to use the OLE DB destination... This is by design...

|||

Why is the SQL server destination for LOCAL SQL servers only? Isn't there a significant performance increase in using the SQL server type versus the OLEDB one when accessing a SQL server?

I also read some articles that state that the SSIS service does not get installed in the workstation edition of SQL server 2005, unless you use the Developer Edition. Can someone also explain why that is?

Thanks!

|||

Hi,

to be honest: no idea. I only know that they did some "tricks" to make accessing local servers faster...

What do you mean with "workstation edition"? I'm not aware of this edition...

|||

The Service is indeed not part of Workgroup Edition, as noted in the matrix in "Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005." However unlike the SQL Server or Analysis Services services, for example, the Integration Services service is not crucial to building and running packages, but merely provides some extra services, like monitoring running packages.

-Doug

|||

Even i have taken excel spreadsheet as input in dataflow and use SQL server destination to update data. But iam not able to update data in database.

I have an excel source which has some columns with values(for ex column with values "yes" / "No"). Now i need to update particular column of a table in a sql server database depending on the column value in excel source.

There was no error in the package but i could not get the expected result could any one help me in this regard.

thanks in advance.

|||

You have not told us what unexpected results you obtained, or what errors you encountered.

You almost certainly need to add a Derived Column transformation to convert "yes" or "no" values to the appropriate Boolean values that a SQL database is probably expecting.

For relatively simple import and export scenarios, you'll usually save yourself some grief by using the Import and Export Wizard to create and save the initial package, then revise and enhance it as needed.

-Doug

|||

Jim R wrote:

Why is the SQL server destination for LOCAL SQL servers only?

Because of the way it works. It has a special mechanism for accessing the memory space of the SQL Server instance but of course in order to do that it needs to be on the same machine. It isn't a limitation that they have delierately put in - its just the way it is.

-Jamie

|||

The scenario goes on like this:

I have an excel source with 3 coulumns(sno,sname,status). The values for status column will be either "yes" or "no".

I have a student table in SQL Server datatase which contain some columns(stdsno,stdsname, stdstatus)

i need to update the stdstatus column of student table in sql server database if and only if the sno of excel source matches with stdsno of sqlserver table and also status column value of excel source is "no".

(for example i need to update the stdstatus column values in database only if the status column value of excel source is "no").

I have taken excel as input source and sqlserverdestination as destination. Which transformation should i use to achive the above said

output.

|||

sanj_vam wrote:

The scenario goes on like this:

I have an excel source with 3 coulumns(sno,sname,status). The values for status column will be either "yes" or "no".

I have a student table in SQL Server datatase which contain some columns(stdsno,stdsname, stdstatus)

i need to update the stdstatus column of student table in sql server database if and only if the sno of excel source matches with stdsno of sqlserver table and also status column value of excel source is "no".

(for example i need to update the stdstatus column values in database only if the status column value of excel source is "no").

I have taken excel as input source and sqlserverdestination as destination. Which transformation should i use to achive the above said

output.

If you need to compare source with destination then Lookup is a good option. Merge Join also has cpabilities in this area.

-Jamie

Problems with remote SQL 2005 server and excel as an input source

Hello,

I am trying to write my first couple Integration Services packages using SQL 2005. My configuration is a workstation running windows xp professional, and a windows 2003 server that is running the SQL server.

Anytime I run a package that accesses the remote server from my workstation, the job fails with an error code. The workstation cannot seem to run a package to load data to the remote sql server. Why is this? Is there a service pack, or hotfix coming out soon to correct this problem?

Additionally, I also seem to be unable to update a database using excel as the data source from which information should be used. If I import my excel spreadsheet into an access table, I can update the sql database from Access using integration services. Why can't I use an excel spreadsheet as the source? Is there a a service pack or hotfix coming out soon for 2005 sql that will correct this problem?

Thanks!

Jim

I've been able to input an excel spreadsheet in the dataflow and then use an Oracle destination to update an oracle table - what errors are you getting?|||

Jim R wrote:

Is there a a service pack or hotfix coming out soon for 2005 sql that will correct this problem?

It would help if you told us what the problem was before anyone answers that question.

What errors are you getting?

|||What destination transform are you using?

If you are using the SQL Server Destination, then the package must run

on the destination server. The SQL Destination inserts data much

more efficiently than the OLE Destination.

If you are using the OLE DB Destination, then please post the error message you are receiving so that we help you debug.

Larry|||

I am using an SQL destination, but I don't understand why the package must run on the destination server for SQL server? That was never a requirement before with sql 2000's DTS services... Shouldn't I be able to develop, test, and even deploy packages to other servers?

Speaking of deploying. Once I have a package developed, how can I run it on the server machine? I don't intend to install the visual studio, etc. on the server....

Jim

|||

Jim,

the SQL Server desination is a special destination adapter for LOCAL SQL Servers only... If you want to connect to remote servers you have to use the OLE DB destination... This is by design...

|||

Why is the SQL server destination for LOCAL SQL servers only? Isn't there a significant performance increase in using the SQL server type versus the OLEDB one when accessing a SQL server?

I also read some articles that state that the SSIS service does not get installed in the workstation edition of SQL server 2005, unless you use the Developer Edition. Can someone also explain why that is?

Thanks!

|||

Hi,

to be honest: no idea. I only know that they did some "tricks" to make accessing local servers faster...

What do you mean with "workstation edition"? I'm not aware of this edition...

|||

The Service is indeed not part of Workgroup Edition, as noted in the matrix in "Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005." However unlike the SQL Server or Analysis Services services, for example, the Integration Services service is not crucial to building and running packages, but merely provides some extra services, like monitoring running packages.

-Doug

|||

Even i have taken excel spreadsheet as input in dataflow and use SQL server destination to update data. But iam not able to update data in database.

I have an excel source which has some columns with values(for ex column with values "yes" / "No"). Now i need to update particular column of a table in a sql server database depending on the column value in excel source.

There was no error in the package but i could not get the expected result could any one help me in this regard.

thanks in advance.

|||

You have not told us what unexpected results you obtained, or what errors you encountered.

You almost certainly need to add a Derived Column transformation to convert "yes" or "no" values to the appropriate Boolean values that a SQL database is probably expecting.

For relatively simple import and export scenarios, you'll usually save yourself some grief by using the Import and Export Wizard to create and save the initial package, then revise and enhance it as needed.

-Doug

|||

Jim R wrote:

Why is the SQL server destination for LOCAL SQL servers only?

Because of the way it works. It has a special mechanism for accessing the memory space of the SQL Server instance but of course in order to do that it needs to be on the same machine. It isn't a limitation that they have delierately put in - its just the way it is.

-Jamie

|||

The scenario goes on like this:

I have an excel source with 3 coulumns(sno,sname,status). The values for status column will be either "yes" or "no".

I have a student table in SQL Server datatase which contain some columns(stdsno,stdsname, stdstatus)

i need to update the stdstatus column of student table in sql server database if and only if the sno of excel source matches with stdsno of sqlserver table and also status column value of excel source is "no".

(for example i need to update the stdstatus column values in database only if the status column value of excel source is "no").

I have taken excel as input source and sqlserverdestination as destination. Which transformation should i use to achive the above said

output.

|||

sanj_vam wrote:

The scenario goes on like this:

I have an excel source with 3 coulumns(sno,sname,status). The values for status column will be either "yes" or "no".

I have a student table in SQL Server datatase which contain some columns(stdsno,stdsname, stdstatus)

i need to update the stdstatus column of student table in sql server database if and only if the sno of excel source matches with stdsno of sqlserver table and also status column value of excel source is "no".

(for example i need to update the stdstatus column values in database only if the status column value of excel source is "no").

I have taken excel as input source and sqlserverdestination as destination. Which transformation should i use to achive the above said

output.

If you need to compare source with destination then Lookup is a good option. Merge Join also has cpabilities in this area.

-Jamie

Problems with queries on Win 2003 server

I am running into lot of problems with queries when
I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
pack.
I was able to run the following query just fine on
Windows NT with Sql 7 -
SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
But the same query gives me the following errors
when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with Sql
2k sp3.
Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
function or the GROUP BY clause.
Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
because it is not contained in either an aggregate
function or the GROUP BY clause.
Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
because it is not contained in either an aggregate
function or the GROUP BY clause.
Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
function or the GROUP BY clause.
Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
function or the GROUP BY clause.
What I am missing?
Thank you,
-LiThe behaviour of queries with expressions in the GROUP BY list doesn't
always seem very logical. I don't have 7.0 to verify but the following query
should work on both versions. In your IN comparison, notice that (a1+b1+c1 =a2+b2+c2) is NOT the same comparison as (a1=a2, b1=b2, c1=c2) if these
values are variable-lengths strings. Unless the strings are CHAR or VARCHAR
of equal length then the result of your query may not be what I think you
intended.
SELECT T1.filing_area, T1.file_num, T1.contract_num, *
FROM eng_file AS T1
JOIN
(SELECT filing_area,
COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST'),
COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
FROM eng_file
GROUP BY filing_area,
COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST'),
COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
HAVING COUNT(*)>1)
AS T2(filing_area, file_num, contract_num)
ON T1.filing_area = T2.filing_area
AND COALESCE(T1.file_num, 'TEST') = T2.file_num
AND COALESCE(T1.contract_num, 'TEST') = T2.contract_num
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Your original query works on SQL Server 2005 (9.00.852), so although it
doesn't help you now it does appear that the problem has been fixed. :-)
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Li,
This certainly looks like a bug to me. I believe your query will
succeed if you replace COALESCE by ISNULL. The two functions are not
identical, however. The data type of COALESCE(x,y) accommodates all
the arguments, but the type of ISNULL(x,y) is the type of x. Also,
COALESCE takes multiple arguments and ISNULL must be nested.
I'll pass this on to Microsoft, since I have not seen it reported
before. Thanks!
Steve Kass
Drew University
Li wrote:
>I am running into lot of problems with queries when
>I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
>pack.
>I was able to run the following query just fine on
>Windows NT with Sql 7 -
>SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
>eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
>in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
>group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
>But the same query gives me the following errors
>when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with Sql
>2k sp3.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>
>What I am missing?
>Thank you,
>-Li
>
>|||Li,
A better workaround (I only checked a simpler query) is to replace
COALESCE(x,y) with CASE WHEN x IS NULL THEN x ELSE y END, which is
equivalent. I think the bug here is a parsing problem that comes up if
a subquery groups on a CASE WHEN NOT ... expression, which is how the
COALESCE must be getting rewritten.
SK
Li wrote:
>I am running into lot of problems with queries when
>I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
>pack.
>I was able to run the following query just fine on
>Windows NT with Sql 7 -
>SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
>eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
>in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
>group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
>But the same query gives me the following errors
>when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with Sql
>2k sp3.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select list
>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>
>What I am missing?
>Thank you,
>-Li
>
>|||Li,
ISNUll worked - thank you.
Please do let me know if you get a chance to report
this to Microsoft and their reaction to it.
Thank you,
-Li
>--Original Message--
>Li,
> This certainly looks like a bug to me. I believe your
query will
>succeed if you replace COALESCE by ISNULL. The two
functions are not
>identical, however. The data type of COALESCE(x,y)
accommodates all
>the arguments, but the type of ISNULL(x,y) is the type
of x. Also,
>COALESCE takes multiple arguments and ISNULL must be
nested.
> I'll pass this on to Microsoft, since I have not seen
it reported
>before. Thanks!
>Steve Kass
>Drew University
>Li wrote:
>>I am running into lot of problems with queries when
>>I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
>>pack.
>>I was able to run the following query just fine on
>>Windows NT with Sql 7 -
>>SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
>>eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST')
+
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
>>in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
>>group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
>>But the same query gives me the following errors
>>when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with
Sql
>>2k sp3.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>
>>What I am missing?
>>Thank you,
>>-Li
>>
>.
>|||Steve,
I agree the query may not be the best one as it was
written to quickly take care of some data issues we are
facing and came up with this. Since it worked fine on Sql
7.0, I don't find any reason for it not to work with Sql
2K. David mentioned that it works on Sql 2k so the
problem may have been fixed. What am I missing that it
isn't working for me?
Any ideas?
I am going to write to David too.
Thank you very much for yout time and input -
-Li
>--Original Message--
>Li,
> A better workaround (I only checked a simpler query)
is to replace
>COALESCE(x,y) with CASE WHEN x IS NULL THEN x ELSE y
END, which is
>equivalent. I think the bug here is a parsing problem
that comes up if
>a subquery groups on a CASE WHEN NOT ... expression,
which is how the
>COALESCE must be getting rewritten.
>SK
>Li wrote:
>>I am running into lot of problems with queries when
>>I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
>>pack.
>>I was able to run the following query just fine on
>>Windows NT with Sql 7 -
>>SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
>>eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST')
+
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
>>in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
>>group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
>>But the same query gives me the following errors
>>when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with
Sql
>>2k sp3.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>
>>What I am missing?
>>Thank you,
>>-Li
>>
>.
>|||Steve,
Ignore my comments about why it isn't working for me.
When I went to reply to DAvid's email, I noticed that he
said it is fixed on 2005 and not 2000, that answers my
question.
-Li
>--Original Message--
>Li,
> A better workaround (I only checked a simpler query)
is to replace
>COALESCE(x,y) with CASE WHEN x IS NULL THEN x ELSE y
END, which is
>equivalent. I think the bug here is a parsing problem
that comes up if
>a subquery groups on a CASE WHEN NOT ... expression,
which is how the
>COALESCE must be getting rewritten.
>SK
>Li wrote:
>>I am running into lot of problems with queries when
>>I run it on a windows 2003 server having Sql 2000 SP3A
>>pack.
>>I was able to run the following query just fine on
>>Windows NT with Sql 7 -
>>SELECT filing_area, File_num, contract_num, * from
>>eng_file where filing_area+ COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST')
+
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST')
>>in (select filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') from eng_file
>>group by filing_area + COALESCE(file_num, 'TEST') +
>>COALESCE(contract_num, 'TEST') having count(*) > 1 )
>>But the same query gives me the following errors
>>when run on Win 2003 with Sql 2000 SP3 or Win 2k with
Sql
>>2k sp3.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILING_AREA' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.FILE_NUM' is invalid in the select
list
>>because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>Server: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>>Column 'eng_file.CONTRACT_NUM' is invalid in the select
>>list because it is not contained in either an aggregate
>>function or the GROUP BY clause.
>>
>>What I am missing?
>>Thank you,
>>-Li
>>
>.
>sql