Mircosoft.ReportViewer.WebForms.dll fails to load

I've just deployed a website to a test server and when I hit a web page that uses the ReportViewer control, I get an error "Microsoft.ReportViewer.WebForms.dll failed to load...". I've searched all hard drives attached to the server and the DLL is not there. I understand that this should be part of the .NET 2.0 framework redistributable package and should live in the WINDOWS\assembly folder. It is not there.

The Add/Remove Programs dialog from the Control Panel shows the .NET 2.0 framework as installed. This is a windows 2000 server box running IIS 5.

Anyone got a clue as to why this DLL would be missing?

Thanks,

Mike

I am having similar issues. I've manually copied the Microsoft.ReportViewer.WebForms.dll from my development PC to my production server's Web app's Bin directory, but am unable to view the ReportViewer's icons such as Export, Print, etc. They're just red x's.

What is the best way to publish the Report Viewer?

|||

The cause of this problem is because the ReportViewer is not installed on the Virtual (Production) Server. Install the ReportViewer by running ReportViewer.exe on your Virtual Server. You can most likely find the ReportViewer.exe on your development machine at C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\SDK\v2.0\BootStrapper\Packages\ReportViewer\ReportViewer.exe

Installation instructions(see link below) are easy to follow & unlike everything else you've probably been wrestling with, this installation should be painless.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms251723(d=printer).aspx

Mining XML from file

Right now, when i want to load contents of XLM file, i have to use openXML which looks this way:

declare @.idoc int
declare @.doc varchar(max)
set @.doc='<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<root>
<tag>
<content1>xxccxcx</content1>
.
.
.
<contentXY>sf</contentXY>
</tag>
</root>
exec sp_xml_preparedocument @.idoc output, @.doc
select *
from openxml (@.idoc, '/root/tag',3 )
( and here is whole select procedure)
insert into (table name)
from openxml (@.idoc, '/root/tag,3 )
(and here it is again)

This is quite "useless" for daily using, unless someone fills the text field with new data.

Is it possible to load content directly from XML file located somewhere on the drive?Is there any other way to open XML file an load its contents into table?|||

What "text field" are you talking about?

Have you looked at the SQL Server Integration Services?

|||Whole content is loaded as text. It has "something" to do with this part:

declare @.idoc int
declare @.doc varchar(max)
set @.doc='<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<root>
<tag>
<content1>xxccxcx</content1>
.
.
.
<contentXY>sf</contentXY>
</tag>
</root>
exec sp_xml_preparedocument @.idoc output, @.doc

If i wanted an visual studio solution, which i already have, i would put it in visual studio forum.

But still integration package is another file, artificially created. I dont need those.|||You could use bulk load:
1. All data to one field
insert into your_table
select * from openrowset( BULK 'c:\yourfile.txt' SINGLE_BLOB)
2. Split data to few rows
insert into your_table

select * from openrowset( BULK 'c:\yourfile.txt' FORMATFILE='C:\bcpformat.xml')

More info: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190312.aspx

Also you could load data into xml column and use xml.nodes function insted of openxml for split xml-data to rows/filed|||

I have the same issue as errpop although i am running SQL 2005 std 1 CPU SP1 on Win 2000 server SP4 (both fully patched clean installs). The errors i am getting in the sql server logs are below and occur immediately after the sql server service starts and the number of cpu's are detected and written to the sql logs.

Error: 8313, Severity: 16, State: 1.

Error in mapping SQL Server performance object/counter indexes to object/counter names. SQL Server performance counters are disabled.

Error: 3409, Severity: 16, State: 1.

Performance counter shared memory setup failed with error -1. Reinstall sqlctr.ini for this instance, and ensure that the instance login account has correct registry permissions.

I have followed the instructions in KB300956 and nothing changed. I noticed executing lodctr sqlctr.ini runs but i dont get any messages on screen. It is like it is not working. The reason i am so interested in the performance counters is i am trying to troubleshoot a local HP SureStore DLT1 tape drive (14 hours to backup 70GB) and i need the SQL backup device counter. I dont know if this is related or not?

Any help is greatly appreciated as this is entirely new territory to me.

Mining XML from file

Right now, when i want to load contents of XLM file, i have to use openXML which looks this way:

declare @.idoc int
declare @.doc varchar(max)
set @.doc='<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<root>
<tag>
<content1>xxccxcx</content1>
.
.
.
<contentXY>sf</contentXY>
</tag>
</root>
exec sp_xml_preparedocument @.idoc output, @.doc
select *
from openxml (@.idoc, '/root/tag',3 )
( and here is whole select procedure)
insert into (table name)
from openxml (@.idoc, '/root/tag,3 )
(and here it is again)

This is quite "useless" for daily using, unless someone fills the text field with new data.

Is it possible to load content directly from XML file located somewhere on the drive?Is there any other way to open XML file an load its contents into table?|||

What "text field" are you talking about?

Have you looked at the SQL Server Integration Services?

|||Whole content is loaded as text. It has "something" to do with this part:

declare @.idoc int
declare @.doc varchar(max)
set @.doc='<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<root>
<tag>
<content1>xxccxcx</content1>
.
.
.
<contentXY>sf</contentXY>
</tag>
</root>
exec sp_xml_preparedocument @.idoc output, @.doc

If i wanted an visual studio solution, which i already have, i would put it in visual studio forum.

But still integration package is another file, artificially created. I dont need those.|||You could use bulk load:
1. All data to one field
insert into your_table
select * from openrowset( BULK 'c:\yourfile.txt' SINGLE_BLOB)
2. Split data to few rows
insert into your_table

select * from openrowset( BULK 'c:\yourfile.txt' FORMATFILE='C:\bcpformat.xml')

More info: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190312.aspx

Also you could load data into xml column and use xml.nodes function insted of openxml for split xml-data to rows/filed|||

I have the same issue as errpop although i am running SQL 2005 std 1 CPU SP1 on Win 2000 server SP4 (both fully patched clean installs). The errors i am getting in the sql server logs are below and occur immediately after the sql server service starts and the number of cpu's are detected and written to the sql logs.

Error: 8313, Severity: 16, State: 1.

Error in mapping SQL Server performance object/counter indexes to object/counter names. SQL Server performance counters are disabled.

Error: 3409, Severity: 16, State: 1.

Performance counter shared memory setup failed with error -1. Reinstall sqlctr.ini for this instance, and ensure that the instance login account has correct registry permissions.

I have followed the instructions in KB300956 and nothing changed. I noticed executing lodctr sqlctr.ini runs but i dont get any messages on screen. It is like it is not working. The reason i am so interested in the performance counters is i am trying to troubleshoot a local HP SureStore DLT1 tape drive (14 hours to backup 70GB) and i need the SQL backup device counter. I dont know if this is related or not?

Any help is greatly appreciated as this is entirely new territory to me.

Minimise toolbar on report load

Hi,
I am using the URL format to render a report.
I would like the toolbar to be shown and have it minimised on report load. I have tried setting Toolbar=false but this removes it from the report. I want the toolbar but I want it minimised on when a report is rendered.
ThanksNo, this is not possible. In SP1, you can collapse the parameters area.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"MikeMcD" <MikeMcD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:756E8829-D810-4B76-AE5A-14A2B547DC58@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am using the URL format to render a report.
> I would like the toolbar to be shown and have it minimised on report load.
I have tried setting Toolbar=false but this removes it from the report. I
want the toolbar but I want it minimised on when a report is rendered.
> Thankssql

Minimal configuration, suggestions wanted.

Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be the
same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as you
asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning # of
disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a good
raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night is
usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up to
15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
on.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Minimal configuration.
> (Performance is not an issue).
> Dataloss should not happen. (But we do not account
> for real dissasters, for example a big fire destroying
> the complete production center, resulting
> in the dataloss of 24 hours would be acceptable.)
> The shop runs 7 x 24 hours.
> Most is done during office hours.
> Some is done during all day.
> At night the system must be available but it is
> used very limited.
> Once a day a tape goes from the production machine to an
> offsite safe.
> The total amount of data has a disk footprint off
> between 1 and 10 Gigabytes.
> Offcourse there is a production machine and
> a standby machine probably in another location.
> (The second machine will be used for testing and
> practicing procedures.)
> Raid is required, raid protects agains single disks failures,
> but what are the options for more protection ?
> What configuration is considered minimal in these circumstances ?
> Esspecially what to do with the disks ?
> (OS / Logging / Data / Backupdata / Transactionlog backup) ?
> What can be combined and what can not be combined ?
> And how often to do the transactionlog backup ?
> (Side question what "route" should the transactionlog(-backup)
> take).
>
> Keep in mind : We are looking for a minimal configuration.
> Later on we will also looking for a 'larger' configuration with
> more performance, a larger database etc. (But still no super
> configuration. Something like 100-200 Gigabyte and more load).
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> ben brugman.
>
Going with your suggestions,
suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
1 OS
2 Logging
3 Data
4 Backupdata
5 Transactionlog backup
Have I missed anything ?
Or are 2 groups enough ?
Or do I need more groups ?

> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
Loosing the complete system because of a major
dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
you loose everything since the last time you brought
the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
problem.
(Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
Two of my problems :
1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
'content',
so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
moment
it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
suggest).
2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost the
datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
should be on a separate disk.
(Performance not being a consideration).
Thanks for your thoughts.
ben brugman
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Keep in mind that a server with a 200GB db and moderate load may not be
the
> same for a 10GB db with light load and this is addressing the latter as
you
> asked. A RAID 0+1 will give the most fault tolerate Raid with good
> performance as well. If the load is light enough (not a lot of
> transactions) then you can probably get away with a good size (meaning #
of
> disks not size of disks) RAID 0+1 or even 1+0 that has everything on it.
> But it is usually best to place the logs on their own RAID 1 and separate
> from the data for performance reasons. With a minimal configuration a
good
> raid is essential along with proper backups. A full backup once a night
is
> usually OK for most applications. The frequency of the log backups depend
> on how much data you are willing to loose. If you can afford to loose up
to
> 15 minutes worth of transactions then use a 15 minute interval etc. Just
> ensure the backups are not done to the same drive the logs or data reside
> on.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:u1zBcW7GEHA.688@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||It depends on how you will use the database. If you have a lot of
operations that use tempdb heavily you may wish to place tempdb on it's own
raid as well. Logs should be on their own array unless it is mostly read
only. A typical config for a moderate system is usually something like
this:
RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> Going with your suggestions,
> suppose you have split the total RAID device in 3 groups
> of disks (fysical separate), how would you place
> 1 OS
> 2 Logging
> 3 Data
> 4 Backupdata
> 5 Transactionlog backup
> Have I missed anything ?
> Or are 2 groups enough ?
> Or do I need more groups ?
>
up
> to
> If I go from estimates of MTBF of disks the chance of
> losing a mirrored disk is extremely small. So the chance
> of loosing up to 15 minutes of data is extremely small.
> Loosing the complete system because of a major
> dissaster (fire for example) looks more likely and then
> you loose everything since the last time you brought
> the backup to outside of the 'box' or the computerroom.
> Because for a minimal system bringing the data out of the
> room more than once or twice a day would probably be a
> problem.
> (Calculation for 2 disks failing, assuming a MTBF of 300000 hours,
> that a failed disk is spotted with in 24 hours. I get a failure of
> two disks every once in 1/(24/300000)^2 days = 156250000 days)
> Two of my problems :
> 1. Backup of the transaction log is not a 'backup' but a 'move' of the
> 'content',
> so how do I protect the backup of the transaction log, because at that
> moment
> it is the only 'copy' of that data in existence. (Still mirrored I would
> suggest).
> 2. If part of the chain of transactionlogs (active of backupped) is lost
the
> datafiles are worthless, so I do not understand that the datafiles
> should be on a separate disk.
> (Performance not being a consideration).
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> ben brugman
>
>
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uRptBADHEHA.2260@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
> you
> of
separate
> good
> is
depend
up
> to
reside
>
|||>
> RAID 1 OS / SQL Binaries
> RAID 1 SQL Transaction Logs
> RAID 10 DATA, TempDB
>
What about :
I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
error or mistake in my reasoning.)
IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
move to outside the system.
But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
of this situation.
(Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
the reasons for this.).
My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
group of disks ?
(What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
than 3 groups of disks ?)
Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
explained.
Thanks again for your time,
and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
understand it.
ben brugman
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c50moh$gtq$1@.reader11.wxs.nl...
> up
Just
> the
be
as
#
it.
> separate
night
> depend
> up
Just
> reside
>
|||The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability. While
there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over just
one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done with
it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> What about :
> I still have difficulty in understanding why different groups
> offer more 'protection' than less different groups.
> In your schema at least 8 disks are needed to realise
> the solution. (1 each for the RAID 1 solution and at least
> four for the RAID 10 solution. This is often the maximum
> number of disks a 'simple' RAID box supports).
> IF (this is supposed by me, so you can point out the
> error or mistake in my reasoning.)
> IF I put everything OS/Log/Data on a single group of
> RAID disks the worst that can happen is that two mirrored
> disks fail, resulting in the dataloss since the last backup and
> move to outside the system.
> But with the proposed system of having OS/Log/Data each on
> their own group, the risk of losing the Log is the same because
> losing the mirrored disk (with only the logs) gives us the
> same amount of dataloss as with everything on the same group.
> I very strongly feel that I AM MISSING SOME UNDERSTANDING
> of this situation.
> (Offcourse if the volumes of data and log become larger and
> performance is an issue, I would go with more groups and understand
> the reasons for this.).
> My question is : Why is it wrong to put OS/Log/Data on a single
> group of disks ?
> (What is the risc of this ? Or why are there more riscs for this
> than 3 groups of disks ?)
> Everybody (books, discussions, usegroups) that this should
> not be done, but except for performance the reason(s) is (are) not
> explained.
> Thanks again for your time,
> and sorry to go on on this subject, but I really would like to
> understand it.
> ben brugman
loose
> Just
would
lost
> be
> as
(meaning
> #
> it.
a
> night
loose
> Just
>
|||"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:ODHMefdHEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The main reason to separate them is for performance and scalability.
While
> there is some added protection for data loss with separate arrays over
just
> one it is secondary to performance and maintenance. If all your worried
> about is a minimal configuration then use a single RAID 10 and be done
with
> it. This will suite many smaller applications just fine. If performance
> becomes an issue and it is attributed to disk I/O you can look into adding
> another RAID 1 for the logs etc.
>
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your anwser,
We will probably go for a RAID 10 solution, were all
SQL-server data and log is stored on one diskgroup.
But we will probably have an offsite copy of this RAID 10
solution, which will be a hardware mirror of the first
RAID 10 box.
For the larger systems a SAN will be used, but this will
be to expensive for the smaller locations.
Thanks for your time.
ben brugman
[color=darkblue]
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:eFLE5oUHEHA.2836@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
the[color=darkblue]
that[color=darkblue]
> would
> lost
not[color=darkblue]
latter[color=darkblue]
good[color=darkblue]
> (meaning
on[color=darkblue]
configuration[color=darkblue]
> a
backups[color=darkblue]
> loose
etc.[color=darkblue]
?
>

millions records archiving and delete

The iussue:

Sql 2K
I have to keep in the database the data from the last 3 months.
Every day I have to load 2 millions records in the database.
So every day I have to export (in an other database as historical data
container) and delete the 2 millions records inserted 3 month + one day ago.

The main problem is that delete operation take a while...involving
transaction log.

The question are:
1) How can I improve this operation (export/delete)
2) If we decide to migrate to SQL 2005, may we use some feature, as
"partitioning" to resolve the problems ? In oracle I can use the "truncate
partition" statement, but in sql 2005, I'm reading, it cant be done.
This becouse we can think to create a partition on the last three mounts to
split data. The partitioning function can be dinamic or containing a
function that says "last 3 months ?" I dont think so.

May you help us
thank you

MastinoMassimo (mastino@.hotmail.it) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Sql 2K
I have to keep in the database the data from the last 3 months.
Every day I have to load 2 millions records in the database. So every
day I have to export (in an other database as historical data container)
and delete the 2 millions records inserted 3 month + one day ago.
>
The main problem is that delete operation take a while...involving
transaction log.
>
The question are:
1) How can I improve this operation (export/delete)
2) If we decide to migrate to SQL 2005, may we use some feature, as
"partitioning" to resolve the problems ? In oracle I can use the
"truncate partition" statement, but in sql 2005, I'm reading, it cant be
done. This becouse we can think to create a partition on the last three
mounts to split data. The partitioning function can be dinamic or
containing a function that says "last 3 months ?" I dont think so.

Permit me to start with SQL 2005. There you have partitioned tables,
and in a case like yours you would set up the table with let's say
four partitions, with the month as the partitioning column. To delete
old rows, you would simply take that table out of the partition
table, and then drop table that table. You in the same manner, shift
in a new table for the next month. Here I said month, but you have one
partition per day, and have 90 partitions if you like - whether this
is a good idea I don't know.

Note that partitioned tables are only available in the Enterprise
(and Developer) Edition of SQL 2005.

In SQL 2005, you would use partitioned views (and here 90 paritions
would definitely go beyond what is manageable). One table per month
and then they are united in a view with a UNION ALL statement. At
a new month you would run a job that dropped the table from four
months back, and create a new table. Notice that you can load directly
to the new, and data should turn in the right place.

See also Stefan Delmarco's article on partitioned views:
http://www.fotia.co.uk/fotia/FA.02...edViews.01.aspx
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||First, thank you for the answer, Erland, it's not the first time you help me
!

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Permit me to start with SQL 2005. There you have partitioned tables,
and in a case like yours you would set up the table with let's say
four partitions, with the month as the partitioning column. To delete
old rows, you would simply take that table out of the partition
table, and then drop table that table. You in the same manner, shift
in a new table for the next month. Here I said month, but you have one
partition per day, and have 90 partitions if you like - whether this
is a good idea I don't know.

Reading and reading over the internet, I found that I can transfer the data
to be dropped with a:

ALTER TABLE SWITCH...

and I can also make partition function dynamic:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964122.aspx
now I'm studying hard for the solution, the problems to resolve are many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
Note that partitioned tables are only available in the Enterprise
(and Developer) Edition of SQL 2005.
>
In SQL 2005, you would use partitioned views (and here 90 paritions
would definitely go beyond what is manageable). One table per month
and then they are united in a view with a UNION ALL statement. At
a new month you would run a job that dropped the table from four
months back, and create a new table. Notice that you can load directly
to the new, and data should turn in the right place.
>
See also Stefan Delmarco's article on partitioned views:
http://www.fotia.co.uk/fotia/FA.02...edViews.01.aspx

I do not want, and I cannot use partitioned wiews, I have to delete what we
do not need any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

Thank you

Massimo / Mastino|||Mastino (mastino@.hotmail.it) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I do not want, and I cannot use partitioned wiews, I have to delete what
we do not need any more.

Why would partitioned views prevent that? When it's time to delete old data,
you first redefine the view, so that the tables to be dropped are not
in the view any more. Then deleting is just dropping the table.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||I will evaluate this way too, but we have to work with millions records
tables.
Thanx

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.seha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns98E5ED0FE4612Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Mastino (mastino@.hotmail.it) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I do not want, and I cannot use partitioned wiews, I have to delete what
we do not need any more.

>
Why would partitioned views prevent that? When it's time to delete old

data,

Quote:

Originally Posted by

you first redefine the view, so that the tables to be dropped are not
in the view any more. Then deleting is just dropping the table.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||On Feb 28, 12:20 am, "Massimo" <mast...@.hotmail.itwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

The iussue:
>
Sql 2K
I have to keep in the database the data from the last 3 months.
Every day I have to load 2 millions records in the database.
So every day I have to export (in an other database as historical data
container) and delete the 2 millions records inserted 3 month + one day ago.
>
The main problem is that delete operation take a while...involving
transaction log.
>
The question are:
1) How can I improve this operation (export/delete)
2) If we decide to migrate to SQL 2005, may we use some feature, as
"partitioning" to resolve the problems ? In oracle I can use the "truncate
partition" statement, but in sql 2005, I'm reading, it cant be done.
This becouse we can think to create a partition on the last three mounts to
split data. The partitioning function can be dinamic or containing a
function that says "last 3 months ?" I dont think so.
>
May you help us
thank you
>
Mastino

Just out of curiosity, do you have to log the delete operation? You
can truncate the tables but that is not logged.

migration from sybase to sql

Our company planning to migrate database server(Unix)
sybase 11.9.2 . This database are avaliable in tape(DAT).
I want to down load & convert to seq 7 or seq 2000
directly from tap to disk.
If I am using dump statment it is showing error msg.
Any one can solve this Issue.
Thanking U
r.varadharajanThe "SQL Server 2000 for the Sybase Customer Resource Kit" might help you -
check http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/sybaseresourcekit.asp.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Varadharajan" <rvrajanmdu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:07f901c33f9d$6e8e49e0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our company planning to migrate database server(Unix)
> sybase 11.9.2 . This database are avaliable in tape(DAT).
> I want to down load & convert to seq 7 or seq 2000
> directly from tap to disk.
> If I am using dump statment it is showing error msg.
> Any one can solve this Issue.
> Thanking U
> r.varadharajan
>