Collapse All Groups

Does anyone know how to create a button or link that would collapse all open
groups? I'd like a link/button that would collapse all lower level items.
For example if your report looks like this:
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
And the user has it drilleddown all the way, they could click the button and
it would collapse so it only showed Level1. Any ideas?
DerekUnfortunately, this feature is not currently supported. If the default
state of the report was only Level 1 shown, they could always refresh.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Derek Fisher" <DerekFisher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44918CD9-0D33-4F6B-B301-88C2CCCBB08C@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know how to create a button or link that would collapse all
> open
> groups? I'd like a link/button that would collapse all lower level items.
> For example if your report looks like this:
> Level 1
> Level 2
> Level 3
> And the user has it drilleddown all the way, they could click the button
> and
> it would collapse so it only showed Level1. Any ideas?
> Derek|||Thanks. I just wanted to see if there was some way to do this.
"Donovan Smith [MSFT]" wrote:
> Unfortunately, this feature is not currently supported. If the default
> state of the report was only Level 1 shown, they could always refresh.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Derek Fisher" <DerekFisher@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44918CD9-0D33-4F6B-B301-88C2CCCBB08C@.microsoft.com...
> > Does anyone know how to create a button or link that would collapse all
> > open
> > groups? I'd like a link/button that would collapse all lower level items.
> > For example if your report looks like this:
> > Level 1
> > Level 2
> > Level 3
> > And the user has it drilleddown all the way, they could click the button
> > and
> > it would collapse so it only showed Level1. Any ideas?
> >
> > Derek
>
>

Code Samples for external linking to Reports

Hello All,
Are there any code samples which would let me post a URL
link from a classic ASP app to specified Reports on SRS
via URL querystring parameters?
Any thoughts/insight would be greatly appreciated...
TIA,
--Karthiki found ample examples of this in the samples that was an option on installtion
"Karthik" wrote:
> Hello All,
> Are there any code samples which would let me post a URL
> link from a classic ASP app to specified Reports on SRS
> via URL querystring parameters?
> Any thoughts/insight would be greatly appreciated...
> TIA,
> --Karthik
>

cnfgsvr.exe - unable to locate dll

Hello,

Please help - I get the following error message while installing SQL server

cnfgsvr.exe - unable to locate dll
the dynamic link library sqlunirl.dll could not be found in the specified path C:\Progra~1\Micros~1\80\Tools\Binn;,;C:\Winnt\syst em;C:\winnt\system32;C:\winnt;C:\winnt\system32\WB EM;C:\Progra~1\Symantec\PCAW~1\:C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\80\Tools\BINN

(pressed ok)

Setup failed to configure the server. Refer to the server error logs and C:winnt/sqlstp log for more information.I had a similar problem, do you managed to resolve the issue?|||Which version of sql server are you installing - desktop/server ...

Check out the following article:

article (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q317328&)|||I am trying to install SQL2000 standard server on a NT 4 server with service pack 6A. On the same machine, I also have SQL 6.5 and 7 which is running Ok.

From the log, it say the driver has not installed properly after copying sqlunirl.dll into system 32 which probably point to MDAC, try to clear the registry but it does not help.

Any clue?|||I had this exact issue. I tried the installation over and over again and checked all the log files as Microsoft suggests on their website.
Believe it or not, the way I got it to work was pretty simple.
All I did was stick the CD ROM in another networked computers CD ROM. Connected to the CDROM over the network and then installed. It installed with no problems.
Seems as though there may be a hardware issue with reading this CD with certain CD ROM drives.
I wasted an hour or so searching the log files only to come up with nothing and this took care of it on the first shot.

Good luck to anyone else that gets this error.

Clustering SQL servers

Does anyone have any information on how to link 2 separate computers with
SQL server to share the load of 1 database? [I think this is called a
cluster?]
In other words, I want to have 1 front-end application machine and 2
back-end database machines that share 1 database.
Thanks.
It might at first seem similar, but this is not really clustering;
clustering involves two or more SQL Server nodes and a shared disk array but
no load balancing. EG in an active/passive configuration the load is not
shared as, at any one time, only one SQL Server machine is in control of the
shared resource which holds the database file. For load balancing in SQL
Server 2000, there is a different technology called 'distributed partitioned
views', (in Enterprise Edition) - plenty of details in BOL.
Also, if you have a requirement to distribute processing where there is a
significant reporting element, you might want to look at having a reporting
server and using log-shipping to transfer changes from the production system
to the reporting server. In this case there is some latency involved and
your application will need to distinguish between servers for different
queries (using the 2 different connection strings).
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Clustering SQL servers

Does anyone have any information on how to link 2 separate computers with
SQL server to share the load of 1 database? [I think this is called a
cluster']
In other words, I want to have 1 front-end application machine and 2
back-end database machines that share 1 database.
Thanks.It might at first seem similar, but this is not really clustering;
clustering involves two or more SQL Server nodes and a shared disk array but
no load balancing. EG in an active/passive configuration the load is not
shared as, at any one time, only one SQL Server machine is in control of the
shared resource which holds the database file. For load balancing in SQL
Server 2000, there is a different technology called 'distributed partitioned
views', (in Enterprise Edition) - plenty of details in BOL.
Also, if you have a requirement to distribute processing where there is a
significant reporting element, you might want to look at having a reporting
server and using log-shipping to transfer changes from the production system
to the reporting server. In this case there is some latency involved and
your application will need to distinguish between servers for different
queries (using the 2 different connection strings).
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Clustering SQL servers

Does anyone have any information on how to link 2 separate computers with
SQL server to share the load of 1 database? [I think this is called a
cluster']
In other words, I want to have 1 front-end application machine and 2
back-end database machines that share 1 database.
Thanks.It might at first seem similar, but this is not really clustering;
clustering involves two or more SQL Server nodes and a shared disk array but
no load balancing. EG in an active/passive configuration the load is not
shared as, at any one time, only one SQL Server machine is in control of the
shared resource which holds the database file. For load balancing in SQL
Server 2000, there is a different technology called 'distributed partitioned
views', (in Enterprise Edition) - plenty of details in BOL.
Also, if you have a requirement to distribute processing where there is a
significant reporting element, you might want to look at having a reporting
server and using log-shipping to transfer changes from the production system
to the reporting server. In this case there is some latency involved and
your application will need to distinguish between servers for different
queries (using the 2 different connection strings).
HTH,
Paul Ibison

clustering - adding a third node

Hi All,
I have a two node cluster, and need to add a third node, can anyone please
send me a link, or steps on howto.
url:http://www.ureader.com/gp/1142-1.aspx
The steps are documented in the BOL:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/fe20dca9-a4c1-4d32-813d-42f1782dfdd3.htm
Linchi
"achilles silva" wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have a two node cluster, and need to add a third node, can anyone please
> send me a link, or steps on howto.
> url:http://www.ureader.com/gp/1142-1.aspx
>
|||Thank you, read about that, forgot to mention in detail that I am working on
a windows 2003 sp2 and sql 2000 sp4 still.
url:http://www.ureader.com/msg/11421002.aspx
|||For SQL2000, the steps are documented in its BOL under the heading "How to
add nodes to an existing virtual server (Setup)". See also
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx#ELUAG
Linchi
"achilles silva" wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have a two node cluster, and need to add a third node, can anyone please
> send me a link, or steps on howto.
> url:http://www.ureader.com/gp/1142-1.aspx
>

Clustered Indexes / Primary Key

Hi All,
I am converting an Access app. from .mdb to ODBC link to a SQL Server.
The first thing I have run into is Clustered Indexes not sorted. I have a
small lookup table with 2 fields. From what I was told here by our DBA,
every key has to have a primary key/clustered index. So, the lookup tables
first field is nothing but Category Numbers which are unique and created by
the user. The table has 121 records. The 2nd field is the Category Name.
The Cat. No. is the Primary Key, Clustered, Unique, No-Nulls. The Cat. Name
is indexed non-clustered. When you open the table, it is sorted by the Cat.
Name and not by the Primary Key! Why?
This is not the behavior I'm looking for. Just learning SQL Server.
Don
The only way you are guaranteed any type of sorting is by
using a query and using an order by clause. You don't want
to depend on a clustered index for sorting your data. You
use an order by.
-Sue
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:59:02 -0700, "Donald King"
<DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
> I am converting an Access app. from .mdb to ODBC link to a SQL Server.
>The first thing I have run into is Clustered Indexes not sorted. I have a
>small lookup table with 2 fields. From what I was told here by our DBA,
>every key has to have a primary key/clustered index. So, the lookup tables
>first field is nothing but Category Numbers which are unique and created by
>the user. The table has 121 records. The 2nd field is the Category Name.
>The Cat. No. is the Primary Key, Clustered, Unique, No-Nulls. The Cat. Name
>is indexed non-clustered. When you open the table, it is sorted by the Cat.
>Name and not by the Primary Key! Why?
>This is not the behavior I'm looking for. Just learning SQL Server.
>Don
|||Sue,
Thanks, I figured out that a Primary key DOES NOT have to be clustered
which I was misinformed by the DBA here. The ORDER BY clause in a query will
execute faster I believe if the field that your ORDER BY clause refers to is
Indexed.
Tks again,
Don
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> The only way you are guaranteed any type of sorting is by
> using a query and using an order by clause. You don't want
> to depend on a clustered index for sorting your data. You
> use an order by.
> -Sue
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:59:02 -0700, "Donald King"
> <DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
|||I think the clustering PK issues hits people because if you
don't have a clustered index on a table and create a PK the
default is for it to be clustered. But it does not mean it
has to be that way - you can specify non-clustered for the
PK. And yes, if you are accessing the data sequentially that
column may be a good candidate for the clustered index. It's
always good to look at the whole picture with the table
though. You get one clustered index so its important to
choose wisely.
-Sue
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:01:02 -0700, "Donald King"
<DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Sue,
> Thanks, I figured out that a Primary key DOES NOT have to be clustered
>which I was misinformed by the DBA here. The ORDER BY clause in a query will
>execute faster I believe if the field that your ORDER BY clause refers to is
>Indexed.
>Tks again,
>Don
>--
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

Clustered Indexes / Primary Key

Hi All,
I am converting an Access app. from .mdb to ODBC link to a SQL Server.
The first thing I have run into is Clustered Indexes not sorted. I have a
small lookup table with 2 fields. From what I was told here by our DBA,
every key has to have a primary key/clustered index. So, the lookup tables
first field is nothing but Category Numbers which are unique and created by
the user. The table has 121 records. The 2nd field is the Category Name.
The Cat. No. is the Primary Key, Clustered, Unique, No-Nulls. The Cat. Name
is indexed non-clustered. When you open the table, it is sorted by the Cat.
Name and not by the Primary Key! Why'
This is not the behavior I'm looking for. Just learning SQL Server.
DonThe only way you are guaranteed any type of sorting is by
using a query and using an order by clause. You don't want
to depend on a clustered index for sorting your data. You
use an order by.
-Sue
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:59:02 -0700, "Donald King"
<DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
> I am converting an Access app. from .mdb to ODBC link to a SQL Server.
>The first thing I have run into is Clustered Indexes not sorted. I have a
>small lookup table with 2 fields. From what I was told here by our DBA,
>every key has to have a primary key/clustered index. So, the lookup tables
>first field is nothing but Category Numbers which are unique and created by
>the user. The table has 121 records. The 2nd field is the Category Name.
>The Cat. No. is the Primary Key, Clustered, Unique, No-Nulls. The Cat. Nam
e
>is indexed non-clustered. When you open the table, it is sorted by the Cat
.
>Name and not by the Primary Key! Why'
>This is not the behavior I'm looking for. Just learning SQL Server.
>Don|||Sue,
Thanks, I figured out that a Primary key DOES NOT have to be clustered
which I was misinformed by the DBA here. The ORDER BY clause in a query wil
l
execute faster I believe if the field that your ORDER BY clause refers to is
Indexed.
Tks again,
Don
--
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> The only way you are guaranteed any type of sorting is by
> using a query and using an order by clause. You don't want
> to depend on a clustered index for sorting your data. You
> use an order by.
> -Sue
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:59:02 -0700, "Donald King"
> <DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>|||I think the clustering PK issues hits people because if you
don't have a clustered index on a table and create a PK the
default is for it to be clustered. But it does not mean it
has to be that way - you can specify non-clustered for the
PK. And yes, if you are accessing the data sequentially that
column may be a good candidate for the clustered index. It's
always good to look at the whole picture with the table
though. You get one clustered index so its important to
choose wisely.
-Sue
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:01:02 -0700, "Donald King"
<DonaldKing@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Sue,
> Thanks, I figured out that a Primary key DOES NOT have to be clustered
>which I was misinformed by the DBA here. The ORDER BY clause in a query wi
ll
>execute faster I believe if the field that your ORDER BY clause refers to i
s
>Indexed.
>Tks again,
>Don
>--
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>