Marking Multiple Records?

I have a crystal report that I have been asked to modify for a new process.

This report will take a look at our scheduling system and display which Dies are needed for each order. The Problem I am running into is I need a way to be able to denote that a Die is at another operation if the die number is previously listed in the report. This would be fine if I could sort by Die number, but the report has to be sorted by time so our Die room staff knows when a die is due to a machine and are able to just run through the list without having to search through the report for the next order.

This report is currently grouped by run date (so we can keep shifts straight) and sorted by Run Start Time and then by machine number.
This is the order is has to be in, and I cannot deviate from that.

Attached is an example of the current layout of the report

My issue is that I need some way to Denote that the die for the last order 278381-1 is at another machine (the First 2 orders 278385-1) so our Die Room staff are not searching for the Die on Rack 51 when they go to get the dies for the the last order.

I have thought long and hard about this, and I cannot figure out a way to get through this issue without reordering the report, which I cant do.

Any assistance or direction would be greatly appreciatedProblem has been resolved
The solution involved creating a Sub-Report and filtering out the extra records that did not match and then adding a Formatting to the Field to denote a Duplicate record.

Marking copied records

I have a big problem now. I need to write a SQL statement to copy some
records from a table to another table. At the process of copying, I want to
update a field in both table. The field is to identify whether the record is
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... record that I've copied, which will be in runnin
g
sequence. There should be repeating numbers. The reason for doing this is if
a user modifies a record in the new table in the future, I will still know
how it originally was by referring back by that number.
Do you get what I mean? I have no idea whether SQL can do that. And whether
it can be settled in a statement. Can someone help me? Give me some guide?
Thank you.You could do this by adding a DateCopied (datetime -default getdate() )
column to the tables -perhaps even adding a WhoChanged (varchar(50) -default
system_user) column.
Other options include a Sequence (timeStamp datatype) Column.
Either of these choices would allow you to always restructure the sequence
of data changes.
Then you just add a TRIGGER to the primary table to copy the old version to
the archive table whenever there is a data change.
You might google "SQL Server" and "Audit Trail". Here's an article to get
you started:
http://expertanswercenter.techtarge...i980058,00.html
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"wrytat" <wrytat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8D4B4729-8170-436E-BE05-D87933758E59@.microsoft.com...
>I have a big problem now. I need to write a SQL statement to copy some
> records from a table to another table. At the process of copying, I want
> to
> update a field in both table. The field is to identify whether the record
> is
> the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... record that I've copied, which will be in
> running
> sequence. There should be repeating numbers. The reason for doing this is
> if
> a user modifies a record in the new table in the future, I will still know
> how it originally was by referring back by that number.
> Do you get what I mean? I have no idea whether SQL can do that. And
> whether
> it can be settled in a statement. Can someone help me? Give me some guide?
> Thank you.

Many databases on one or multiple SQL2000 servers

Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate database
s
for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 SQL
2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previously,
we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back on
SQL 7 though.
We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
the times!
So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration TechnologiesHi John,
I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
required.
The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users with
an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6GB
of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via 2G
B
fiber.
My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in such
an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM and
a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this is
just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave us.
Bryan
"John J. Berlo" wrote:

> Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate databa
ses
> for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 S
QL
> 2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previousl
y,
> we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back o
n
> SQL 7 though.
> We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
> 3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
> option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
> the times!
> So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server
?
> --John J. Berlo
> Lend Lease Corportation
> Collaboration Technologies|||Brian,
Thanks for the information. On our current servers, we are seeing
approximately 650 concurrent users. Not an enourmous amount, but one that
concerns us whether a single server is the best way to go.
If money was no object, I would do a 2-server active-active cluster, but SQL
Enterprise is a large jump in price than standard. So, the situation as I
see it leaves us with 2 choices:
1) Move to a single 2003 Server Enterprise server with 6-8GB RAM and 2-dual
core processors
-or-
2) Stay on 2 2003 Server standard servers with 4GB RAM and a single
dual-core processor
(both with SQL standard licenses and hooked to a very robust SAN).
Thoughts?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration Technologies
"Bryan Ivie" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
> this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
> queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
> required.
> The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
> accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
> databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
> databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users wi
th
> an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6
GB
> of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via
2GB
> fiber.
> My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in su
ch
> an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM a
nd
> a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
> support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
> Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this i
s
> just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave u
s.
> Bryan
>
> "John J. Berlo" wrote:
>

Many databases on one or multiple SQL2000 servers

Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate databases
for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 SQL
2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previously,
we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back on
SQL 7 though.
We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
the times! :)
So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration TechnologiesHi John,
I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
required.
The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users with
an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6GB
of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via 2GB
fiber.
My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in such
an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM and
a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this is
just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave us.
Bryan
"John J. Berlo" wrote:
> Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate databases
> for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 SQL
> 2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previously,
> we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back on
> SQL 7 though.
> We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
> 3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
> option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
> the times! :)
> So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server?
> --John J. Berlo
> Lend Lease Corportation
> Collaboration Technologies|||Brian,
Thanks for the information. On our current servers, we are seeing
approximately 650 concurrent users. Not an enourmous amount, but one that
concerns us whether a single server is the best way to go.
If money was no object, I would do a 2-server active-active cluster, but SQL
Enterprise is a large jump in price than standard. So, the situation as I
see it leaves us with 2 choices:
1) Move to a single 2003 Server Enterprise server with 6-8GB RAM and 2-dual
core processors
-or-
2) Stay on 2 2003 Server standard servers with 4GB RAM and a single
dual-core processor
(both with SQL standard licenses and hooked to a very robust SAN).
Thoughts?
--John J. Berlo
Lend Lease Corportation
Collaboration Technologies
"Bryan Ivie" wrote:
> Hi John,
> I have found that there are more variables involved in a decision such as
> this. How many users, the number of concurrent queries, the design of the
> queries, etc., all play a big factor in how much processing power will be
> required.
> The number of databases is higher than normal, but not unheard of. Our
> accounting system currently requires us to operate a server with over 900
> databases. I am running this on a single server without issue. The
> databases, though numerous, are well designed and support our 200 users with
> an acceptable level of performance. The hardware is a 4-way server with 6GB
> of RAM and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. The disk array is an IBM SAN via 2GB
> fiber.
> My guess would be that disk and RAM could be your biggest true enemy in such
> an implementation. If you can buy a decent server with 6GB or so of RAM and
> a good disk array with quite a few spindles, say 20, you should be able to
> support up to 200 - 300 users fairly well.
> Hope this helps... also remember, there are a lot of variables and this is
> just my "professional" opinion based on the limited information you gave us.
> Bryan
>
> "John J. Berlo" wrote:
> > Hi there. We currently have an application which requires separate databases
> > for each "project" we work on. We are in the process of replacing our 2 SQL
> > 2000 servers and are unsure whether to purchase 1 or 2 servers. Previously,
> > we implemented with 2 servers due to performance reasons. That was back on
> > SQL 7 though.
> >
> > We have approximately 400 databases which range in size from .5GB to about
> > 3GB. These cannot be collapsed into fewer databases. SQL2005 is not an
> > option at this time (gotta love software companies that don't keep up with
> > the times! :)
> >
> > So, do I get 2 servers or a single (larger in processor and memory) server?
> >
> > --John J. Berlo
> > Lend Lease Corportation
> > Collaboration Technologies

Managing transactional replication

Hi everybody,

I wish to manage the process of transactional replication between two SQL databases using a c# (or any other possible language, does not differ) written tool. More accurately, I have a database in my server, and I want to have the program to be run from any other computer and does the replication between the local pc(where the program is run) and my server. More to say is that the connection between the server and pc(s) is over the internet.

I would be so thankful if anyone would help me to solve the issue,

with regards

farshad

Hi FArshad.

Look at: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/ms146966.aspx

It provides more links to create your publication, subscription and synchronization using RMO (C#).

For Transaction replication, you cannot just use Internet to do your synchronization. You would need to have VPN established. However you dont need VPN and can just synchronization over the Internet using Merge replication. If you are interested, search for eb Synchronization on msdn.

Hope that helps.

|||

Hi Mahesh and thanks for answering,

The exact thing I'm looking for is a way to start the replication in a subscriber machine; where replication is transactional and subscriber can be any machine that has sql server 2000 installed and has my database and its schema configured. Because I will have new entries in database and subscribers must not change their own databases, and also to save time, I'm going to use transactional replication. For now, I know how to generate snapshot and then synchronize the subscriber with publisher's data, but as you know, after a while when database becomes larger, generating snapshot would take a lot of time, so I'm searching a better solution. Is there any way to do so ?

Cheers,

farshad

|||

If I understand right you are saying that you do not want the snapshot to be donloaded but start the subscriber with a database and data.

If so search for 'Initialize from Backup' in BOL.

|||

Thanks Mahesh,

I think I didn't say what I meant, of course this was a good help, but not exactly the solution to my problem. Thanks a lot again,

cheers

farshad

Management Studio takes 1 minute to start

I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
29 seconds between closing the registry key:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters\Winsock
and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
\10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
they are still alive.
So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
still tries.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
- Sean
Hi
http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2006/07/11/662053.aspx
"Seannerd" <sean@.coolbean.com> wrote in message
news:1185898405.459588.322800@.57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
> 29 seconds between closing the registry key:
> HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters\Winsock
> and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
> \10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
> I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
> servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
> they are still alive.
> So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
> alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
> SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
> still tries.
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks.
> - Sean
>

Management Studio takes 1 minute to start

I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
29 seconds between closing the registry key:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\T
cpip\Parameters\Winsock
and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
\10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
they are still alive.
So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
still tries.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
- SeanHi
http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archiv.../11/662053.aspx
"Seannerd" <sean@.coolbean.com> wrote in message
news:1185898405.459588.322800@.57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
> 29 seconds between closing the registry key:
> HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\T
cpip\Parameters\Winsock
> and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
> \10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
> I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
> servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
> they are still alive.
> So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
> alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
> SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
> still tries.
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks.
> - Sean
>

Management Studio takes 1 minute to start

I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
29 seconds between closing the registry key:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Winsock
and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
\10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
they are still alive.
So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
still tries.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
- SeanHi
http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2006/07/11/662053.aspx
"Seannerd" <sean@.coolbean.com> wrote in message
news:1185898405.459588.322800@.57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>I did a Process Monitor trace, and found that it hangs twice -
> 29 seconds between closing the registry key:
> HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Winsock
> and exiting the thread, and 18 seconds trying to create \
> \10.0.120.21\PIPE\sql\query
> I'm thinking that this has to do with prior connection attempts to SQL
> servers that are not on my network now. I think it is trying to see if
> they are still alive.
> So - my question is - where is this information kept, and how do I
> alter it? I can't find it in any registry keys. I tried renaming the
> SQL Server directories in my Program Data and AppData folders, yet it
> still tries.
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks.
> - Sean
>