Has anyone figured out a way to do a true page break in a multi-column
report. If a group ends somewhere in the first column what I would like to do
is start the next group on the next page not at the top of the next column.
If this is possible, I'd sure like to know how.
ThanksOn Jun 18, 5:55 pm, B. Mark McKinney <b...@.newsproups.nospam> wrote:
> Has anyone figured out a way to do a true page break in a multi-column
> report. If a group ends somewhere in the first column what I would like to do
> is start the next group on the next page not at the top of the next column.
> If this is possible, I'd sure like to know how.
> Thanks
These steps should give you your desired outcome.
1. In the 'Layout' view of BIDS, select the table/matrix control
(where applicable).
2. Right click the table/matrix and select 'Properties.'
3. On the 'Groups' tab, select the 'Add...' button.
4. Below 'Group on:' and 'Expression' enter the following:
'=Ceiling(RowNumber(Nothing)/18)'
5. Select 'Page break at end'
5. Select 'OK' and 'OK' again.
[NOTE: The format in step 4 is: =Ceiling(RowNumber(Nothing)/
NumberOfRowsPerPage) ]
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||Thank you for the response. Unfortunately that did not solve my problem with
multi-column reports. I have two tables inside of a list and the list
controls the grouping. It correctly breaks at the end of each group but if
the group ends in the first column it starts the next group at the top of
column two instead of the next page. Adding a second list and grouping using
your method inserts more page breaks but does not give you the control that
you need. Infact in some instances you end up stopping one group in the
second column of one page and start the next group at the top of column two
on the next page.
I don't think that there is a solution to this problem currently. Hopefully
there will be one in the future as I have many reports that could benefit
from the multi column layout but the way it is now the output would be
unusable.
That and not being able to deal with large reports are my two biggest beefs.
Yes you can break them up into smaller pieces and you can use pdf print
drivers etc etc but that is a really sloppy and inefficient way to handle
what should be a very basic function. Actually my two beefs are somewhat
related in that if mult- column reports worked I could probably shrink some
of my mid sized reports down to manageable sizes like 200 - 800 pages.
Glitz is great but when the basics don't work the end product looks real
cheezy when customers use it.
Anyway, back to the problem at hand, the way I look at it there is a huge
difference between a column break and a page break.
Showing posts with label group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label group. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Muliple rows for group side by side with data
I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
someone on this group can help me out.
I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
can easily create a report that looks like this:
NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
ITEM2
ITEM3
ITEM4
ITEM5
...
NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
...
where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1 ITEM2
ADDR2 ITEM3
PHONE ITEM4
ITEM5
...
If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
is blank.
This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
Thank you,
TedHi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
Select Name From ?
Union
Select ADDR1 From ?
Union
Select ADDR2 From ?
Etc.
gr.
Mike
"Ted K" wrote:
> I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> someone on this group can help me out.
> I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> can easily create a report that looks like this:
> NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> ITEM2
> ITEM3
> ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> ...
> where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1 ITEM2
> ADDR2 ITEM3
> PHONE ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> is blank.
> This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> Thank you,
> Ted
>|||Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
problems. For example, one layout came up with:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1
ADDR2
PHONE
ITEM2
ITEM3
ITEM4
ITEM5
...
instead of:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1 ITEM2
ADDR2 ITEM3
PHONE ITEM4
ITEM5
Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
header fields instead of below?
Thank you very much,
Ted
"Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> Select Name From ?
> Union
> Select ADDR1 From ?
> Union
> Select ADDR2 From ?
> Etc.
> gr.
> Mike
> "Ted K" wrote:
> > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > someone on this group can help me out.
> >
> > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> >
> > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > ITEM2
> > ITEM3
> > ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > ...
> >
> > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > PHONE ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> >
> > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > is blank.
> >
> > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> >
> > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ted
> >
> >|||Hi Ted,
I've done a similar thing just via using simple Tables.
I just created 2 tables next to each other, and they should get layed out
correctly.
I'm no expert, but I'm thinking I'd want to create a List with 2 Tables
inside it, like so:
--LIST--
| Table1- Table2- |
|| | | | |
||______| |_____| |
--
And that way you can layout table 1 as you want with the name and address
details, and table 2 with the details of the Items.
Let me know if it works for you, and if u understand my funny explanations.
Andre
"Ted K" wrote:
> Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
> to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
> RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
> problems. For example, one layout came up with:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1
> ADDR2
> PHONE
> ITEM2
> ITEM3
> ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> instead of:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1 ITEM2
> ADDR2 ITEM3
> PHONE ITEM4
> ITEM5
> Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
> header fields instead of below?
> Thank you very much,
> Ted
> "Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> > Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> > Select Name From ?
> > Union
> > Select ADDR1 From ?
> > Union
> > Select ADDR2 From ?
> > Etc.
> >
> > gr.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > "Ted K" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > > someone on this group can help me out.
> > >
> > > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> > >
> > > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > > ITEM2
> > > ITEM3
> > > ITEM4
> > > ITEM5
> > > ...
> > > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > > ...
> > >
> > > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> > >
> > > NAME ITEM1
> > > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > > PHONE ITEM4
> > > ITEM5
> > > ...
> > >
> > > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > > is blank.
> > >
> > > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> > >
> > > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >|||Thanks for replying. Before I tried to work out the 2 tables next to each
other (and how to get the rows to match up right), I got one of my other
layouts working.
In case anyone wants to know, I created a list for the group, put all of the
static fields down, then put a list for the detail items to the right of the
static fields. The important part was to make the detail list as tall as all
of the static fields and also to set CanShrink to true. If there were very
few items, the list would shrink. If there were a lot, the list would grow,
but would not push down any of the static fields because the bottom of the
list was already below the text boxes.
Ted
"Arkiliknam" wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> I've done a similar thing just via using simple Tables.
> I just created 2 tables next to each other, and they should get layed out
> correctly.
> I'm no expert, but I'm thinking I'd want to create a List with 2 Tables
> inside it, like so:
> --LIST--
> | Table1- Table2- |
> || | | | |
> ||______| |_____| |
> --
> And that way you can layout table 1 as you want with the name and address
> details, and table 2 with the details of the Items.
> Let me know if it works for you, and if u understand my funny explanations.
> Andre
> "Ted K" wrote:
> > Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
> > to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
> > RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
> > problems. For example, one layout came up with:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1
> > ADDR2
> > PHONE
> > ITEM2
> > ITEM3
> > ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > PHONE ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> >
> > Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
> > header fields instead of below?
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> > Ted
> >
> > "Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> > > Select Name From ?
> > > Union
> > > Select ADDR1 From ?
> > > Union
> > > Select ADDR2 From ?
> > > Etc.
> > >
> > > gr.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > "Ted K" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > > > someone on this group can help me out.
> > > >
> > > > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > > > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > > > ITEM2
> > > > ITEM3
> > > > ITEM4
> > > > ITEM5
> > > > ...
> > > > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > > > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> > > >
> > > > NAME ITEM1
> > > > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > > > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > > > PHONE ITEM4
> > > > ITEM5
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > > > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > > > is blank.
> > > >
> > > > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > > > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > > > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > > > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > > > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > > > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > > > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > >sql
someone on this group can help me out.
I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
can easily create a report that looks like this:
NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
ITEM2
ITEM3
ITEM4
ITEM5
...
NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
...
where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1 ITEM2
ADDR2 ITEM3
PHONE ITEM4
ITEM5
...
If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
is blank.
This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
Thank you,
TedHi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
Select Name From ?
Union
Select ADDR1 From ?
Union
Select ADDR2 From ?
Etc.
gr.
Mike
"Ted K" wrote:
> I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> someone on this group can help me out.
> I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> can easily create a report that looks like this:
> NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> ITEM2
> ITEM3
> ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> ...
> where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1 ITEM2
> ADDR2 ITEM3
> PHONE ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> is blank.
> This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> Thank you,
> Ted
>|||Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
problems. For example, one layout came up with:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1
ADDR2
PHONE
ITEM2
ITEM3
ITEM4
ITEM5
...
instead of:
NAME ITEM1
ADDR1 ITEM2
ADDR2 ITEM3
PHONE ITEM4
ITEM5
Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
header fields instead of below?
Thank you very much,
Ted
"Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> Select Name From ?
> Union
> Select ADDR1 From ?
> Union
> Select ADDR2 From ?
> Etc.
> gr.
> Mike
> "Ted K" wrote:
> > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > someone on this group can help me out.
> >
> > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> >
> > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > ITEM2
> > ITEM3
> > ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > ...
> >
> > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > PHONE ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> >
> > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > is blank.
> >
> > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> >
> > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ted
> >
> >|||Hi Ted,
I've done a similar thing just via using simple Tables.
I just created 2 tables next to each other, and they should get layed out
correctly.
I'm no expert, but I'm thinking I'd want to create a List with 2 Tables
inside it, like so:
--LIST--
| Table1- Table2- |
|| | | | |
||______| |_____| |
--
And that way you can layout table 1 as you want with the name and address
details, and table 2 with the details of the Items.
Let me know if it works for you, and if u understand my funny explanations.
Andre
"Ted K" wrote:
> Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
> to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
> RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
> problems. For example, one layout came up with:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1
> ADDR2
> PHONE
> ITEM2
> ITEM3
> ITEM4
> ITEM5
> ...
> instead of:
> NAME ITEM1
> ADDR1 ITEM2
> ADDR2 ITEM3
> PHONE ITEM4
> ITEM5
> Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
> header fields instead of below?
> Thank you very much,
> Ted
> "Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> > Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> > Select Name From ?
> > Union
> > Select ADDR1 From ?
> > Union
> > Select ADDR2 From ?
> > Etc.
> >
> > gr.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > "Ted K" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > > someone on this group can help me out.
> > >
> > > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> > >
> > > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > > ITEM2
> > > ITEM3
> > > ITEM4
> > > ITEM5
> > > ...
> > > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > > ...
> > >
> > > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> > >
> > > NAME ITEM1
> > > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > > PHONE ITEM4
> > > ITEM5
> > > ...
> > >
> > > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > > is blank.
> > >
> > > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> > >
> > > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >|||Thanks for replying. Before I tried to work out the 2 tables next to each
other (and how to get the rows to match up right), I got one of my other
layouts working.
In case anyone wants to know, I created a list for the group, put all of the
static fields down, then put a list for the detail items to the right of the
static fields. The important part was to make the detail list as tall as all
of the static fields and also to set CanShrink to true. If there were very
few items, the list would shrink. If there were a lot, the list would grow,
but would not push down any of the static fields because the bottom of the
list was already below the text boxes.
Ted
"Arkiliknam" wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> I've done a similar thing just via using simple Tables.
> I just created 2 tables next to each other, and they should get layed out
> correctly.
> I'm no expert, but I'm thinking I'd want to create a List with 2 Tables
> inside it, like so:
> --LIST--
> | Table1- Table2- |
> || | | | |
> ||______| |_____| |
> --
> And that way you can layout table 1 as you want with the name and address
> details, and table 2 with the details of the Items.
> Let me know if it works for you, and if u understand my funny explanations.
> Andre
> "Ted K" wrote:
> > Thanks Mike. I'm very good with SQL and am confident I can write the query
> > to get the data back however I want. What I'm looking for is help with the
> > RDL layout. I have tried nested tables, lists, and other ways, but each has
> > problems. For example, one layout came up with:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1
> > ADDR2
> > PHONE
> > ITEM2
> > ITEM3
> > ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> > ...
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > NAME ITEM1
> > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > PHONE ITEM4
> > ITEM5
> >
> > Any experts out there know how to put the detail rows to the right of the
> > header fields instead of below?
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> > Ted
> >
> > "Mike Klaarhamer" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, This is possible with Unions in your dataset.
> > > Select Name From ?
> > > Union
> > > Select ADDR1 From ?
> > > Union
> > > Select ADDR2 From ?
> > > Etc.
> > >
> > > gr.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > "Ted K" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a report layout that has proved to be a little tricky. I hope
> > > > someone on this group can help me out.
> > > >
> > > > I am going to show a simplified version that captures the problem. I
> > > > can easily create a report that looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > NAME ADDR1 ADDR2 PHONE ITEM1
> > > > ITEM2
> > > > ITEM3
> > > > ITEM4
> > > > ITEM5
> > > > ...
> > > > NAME2 ADDR ADDR PHONE ITEM1
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > where there could be zero or more items for each person. I have been
> > > > asked to create a report that looks somthing like thiS:
> > > >
> > > > NAME ITEM1
> > > > ADDR1 ITEM2
> > > > ADDR2 ITEM3
> > > > PHONE ITEM4
> > > > ITEM5
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > If there are more than 4 items, then they appear below. If there are
> > > > less than 4 items, then the space to the right of the address and phone
> > > > is blank.
> > > >
> > > > This is a simplified example. There are actually many more fixed
> > > > fields, and they don't fit on 1 line -- it'll take about 7 lines to fit
> > > > them. If I were to put the repeating items below the fixed fields,
> > > > then 5 items would take a total of 12 lines for this person. By having
> > > > the items side by side with the fixed fields, 5 items would only take
> > > > the 7 lines and we save a lot of space.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone done this? Can anyone tell me how to place detail items
> > > > side by side with multiple rows of group header data?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > >sql
Friday, March 9, 2012
MSSQL7 -> MSSQL2000 schema and data
Hi group,
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.
> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.
> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
MSSQL7 -> MSSQL2000 schema and data
Hi group,
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
MSSQL7 -> MSSQL2000 schema and data
Hi group,
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
[First time in, so feel free to shoot me if needed]
I am experienced with Postgresql, but relatively new to MSSQLServer.
I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
2000.
As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
Right?
Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
As for the data itself:
The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
(Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL option?
Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: I am sorry, but expect this is a very basic question. I just cannot find
any clear material on the subject online.> I am building an application that uses MSSQL7.
> Only basic stuff: 20 tables, foreign keys, a nice diagram, a few indexes.
> No DTS, complex userstuff and that.
> The target MSSQLServer will be 2000.
> So now I need to know how to get my databaseschema and content from 7 to
> 2000.
> As far as I can tell the option: GENERATE SQL only offers me an text-based
> instruction for SCHEMA, not the content of table.
> Right?
Right.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 understand the instructions created by MSSQL7?
Yes.
> As for the data itself:
> The only way to export the data in the tables from MSSQL7 to MSSQL2000 I
> found is by backing the whole thing up, as a binary.
> (Using 'all tasks' --> 'Backup database')
You found the easiest way. You could use Data transformation Services (DTS),
for example, as well.
> Question: Will MSSQL2000 read and understand this file?
Yes, simply restore the backup on SQL 2000 box. But I guess you will have to
change the physical path to data and log files, unless you have created the
database in 7.0 in your custom (not SQL default) folder and you have the
same directory structure in 2000.
> And will I need the databaseschema as generated by the GENERATE SQL
> option?
No.
> Or will MSSQL2000 be able to get that from the binary export?
Yes - backup has everything, schema and data.
> Is this the way to do it, or am I missing lots of stuff?
Yes, this is a good way. You have original 7.0 db, backup and new 2000 db
after the action. So. if anything goes wrong, you have 3 copies. And the
process is quite simple.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Thanks Dejan Sarka!
I seldom receive such to-the-point answers. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)