Lock row.

Hello everyone,
I have a web project where users access a aspx page to view information stored in an SQL database.
My client want that one user can access a row of information and see it, allother users shouldn't be able to view or update thesame row?
it means whenever a row of data is displayed by some user, this row should be locked even for beeing viewed by all other users, when this user close this page, this row will be available. ?I should do this in code behind or something in sql...
How can I do that?

It is not easy to do but the link below will take you in the right direction. Hope this helps.

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/lock_contention_tamed_article.asp

|||

Thanks for your reply,
All I want to do is: if a userA access a row, all other users can't access this row even for reading.
I read the article but I didn't understand how can I do this.
Any help...

|||

No, not really. You'd have to roll your own method of locking out views when someone is viewing the same record.

Really, it sounds like a bad design.

|||

Goodway:

Thanks for your reply,
All I want to do is: if a userA access a row, all other users can't access this row even for reading.
I read the article but I didn't understand how can I do this.
Any help...

(UPDATE Users WITH (ROWLOCK)
SET Username = 'fred' WHERE Username = 'foobar'

By specifically requesting row-level locks, these problems are avoided.)

I got this from that link but I have told you it is not easy to lock access because as relational algebra expert Chris Date puts it a SELECT returns a table so you could be locking a table instead of one row through lock escalation managed by SQL Server. Hope this helps.

|||

That Update doesn't do what he asked for.

A) The WITH ROWLOCK really doesn't help. Sure, it (might) help with reducing contention by holding less granular locks, but... It doesn't hold the lock for any longer than the update statement takes to complete. That is unless you wrap it in a highly isolated transaction.

B) Transactions complete when the execution of the transaction variable is destroyed or the connection object is closed. This normally happens when the execution of the page completes. In order to avoid that (If it's even possible), you would need to stuff the transaction into either a session or application object so it doesn't go out of scope with the page finishes executing.

The workaround for B causes problems C,D and E.

C) Because the transaction (and locks) are now being held for LONG periods of time, you'll start having all kinds of performance and timeout problems within the database.

D) Memory usage within the webserver will skyrocket because of all the transaction/connection objects being held across postbacks. This will lead to additional scaling issues. Possibly consuming enough memory to trigger the .NET framework to recycle the application. Make sure to add plenty of memory to the webserver, and set the recycling threshold very high to avoid the locks being lost randomly when the system recycles the process.

E) Abandoned sessions will cause the record to be locked indefinately. What if the user loses power, or closes the browser? The server will continue to lock that record forever (Or until the session dies after a very long period of activity if you've stored the information in session, or until you recycle the application if you stored them in application). Sure the user can then log back in to the website, and he'll have to wait for the record to unlock itself before even he can do anything with the record.

The idea is flawed. Don't lock the record. Remember the original values, and when you go to update the record make sure the record still looks exactly the same prior to actually doing the update. The sql wizard will do this for you if you tell it to compare all values.

|||

(My client want that one user can access a row of information and see it, all other users shouldn't be able to view or update the same row?)

I was replying his original post and I understand he is trying to lock the viewing of scalar value well that is not something you could do without problems with RDBMS(relational database management systems).

LOCK REQUEST TIME OUT PERIOD EXCEEDED

Got a VB6 program creating records in an SQL 2000 DB. I have 5 client
machines creating 100,000 records each in the same table at the same time.
On a couple of machine I get the error "LOCK REQUEST TIME OUT PERIOD
EXCEEDED". This happened maybe 4 times. Would this be due to a network or
hardware limitation or is it a SQL DB factor maybe ?
The SQL server is only a P4 with 512 ram.
Clients machines vary greatly and run 2000pro and XPpro.
Thanks for any pointers.
Scott.It seems the table is locked by one process for a longer
time, and this has forced other process to throw the
error 1222.
The LOCK_TIMEOUT setting allows an application to set a
maximum time that a statement waits on a blocked
resource. When a statement has waited longer than the
LOCK_TIMEOUT setting, the blocked statement is canceled
automatically, and error message 1222 "Lock request time-
out period exceeded" is returned to the application.
I think if after every 1000 inserts, if you commit the
transaction, then the resource will not be locked for a
longer duration.
regds,
Shrikant Patil,
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>Got a VB6 program creating records in an SQL 2000 DB. I
have 5 client
>machines creating 100,000 records each in the same table
at the same time.
>On a couple of machine I get the error "LOCK REQUEST
TIME OUT PERIOD
>EXCEEDED". This happened maybe 4 times. Would this be
due to a network or
>hardware limitation or is it a SQL DB factor maybe ?
>The SQL server is only a P4 with 512 ram.
>Clients machines vary greatly and run 2000pro and XPpro.
>Thanks for any pointers.
>Scott.
>
>.
>|||i see.
so the error was recived because one clinet/process was ready to commit 1000
records while another clinet/process was in the process of commiting - hence
the error.
the chances that a clinet machine would recive this with our software in
practice is very remotei guess as they would probablty never create that
many records at the same time to the same table. even if they did the RETRY
option seems to deal with it well anyway.
Is there other locking methods that can be employed rather than the 1000
batch one ?
Thanks for your time
Scott

local uniqueness of a column

Hi,
I'm dealing with a database that is used to contain files for multiple
client companies, in one table I would like to enforce the uniqueness of the
file name column within a broker (that is file name must be unique within
each company). Currently I reinforce this with a trigger on update and
insert event and count for the duplicates within the broker, it causes lots
of deadlocks because it has to scan and lock up too many rows (I have to
stick with the Repeat Read Isolation level.) I'm pretty sure that it's not
the only cause of deadlock but it should be one of them. Has anybody known
how to resolve this or have any comment advice that can share with me?
thanks!!Zeng,
It would help to see your CREATE TABLE statement, but it sounds like
you want (broker, file_name) to be unique. If the broker is also a column
in your table, just declare a UNIQUE constraint, as in
create table AllFiles (
broker_id int not null references brokers(id),
file_name nvarchar(200),
other_stuff varchar(80),
unique (broker_id, file_name)
)
or to add this constraint to the existing table:
alter table AllFiles
add constraint AllFiles_broker_file unique(broker_id, file_name)
If this isn't what you want, you'll have to post the CREATE TABLE
statement and explain what "within a broker" or "within each company"
means.
Steve Kass
Drew University
Zeng wrote:
>Hi,
>I'm dealing with a database that is used to contain files for multiple
>client companies, in one table I would like to enforce the uniqueness of the
>file name column within a broker (that is file name must be unique within
>each company). Currently I reinforce this with a trigger on update and
>insert event and count for the duplicates within the broker, it causes lots
>of deadlocks because it has to scan and lock up too many rows (I have to
>stick with the Repeat Read Isolation level.) I'm pretty sure that it's not
>the only cause of deadlock but it should be one of them. Has anybody known
>how to resolve this or have any comment advice that can share with me?
>thanks!!
>
>
>|||It's a good idea, I just didn't think of it as a unique compound keys.
However, wouldn't that have the same in term of performance and deadlock
chance? In another word, wouldn't sqlserver have to do the similar scanning
to reenforce the constraint?
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:uVod32I6EHA.2512@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Zeng,
> It would help to see your CREATE TABLE statement, but it sounds like
> you want (broker, file_name) to be unique. If the broker is also a column
> in your table, just declare a UNIQUE constraint, as in
> create table AllFiles (
> broker_id int not null references brokers(id),
> file_name nvarchar(200),
> other_stuff varchar(80),
> unique (broker_id, file_name)
> )
> or to add this constraint to the existing table:
> alter table AllFiles
> add constraint AllFiles_broker_file unique(broker_id, file_name)
> If this isn't what you want, you'll have to post the CREATE TABLE
> statement and explain what "within a broker" or "within each company"
> means.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
>
> Zeng wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm dealing with a database that is used to contain files for multiple
> >client companies, in one table I would like to enforce the uniqueness of
the
> >file name column within a broker (that is file name must be unique within
> >each company). Currently I reinforce this with a trigger on update and
> >insert event and count for the duplicates within the broker, it causes
lots
> >of deadlocks because it has to scan and lock up too many rows (I have to
> >stick with the Repeat Read Isolation level.) I'm pretty sure that it's
not
> >the only cause of deadlock but it should be one of them. Has anybody
known
> >how to resolve this or have any comment advice that can share with me?
> >thanks!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >|||On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:40:49 -0800, "Zeng" <zzy@.nonospam.com> wrote:
>It's a good idea, I just didn't think of it as a unique compound keys.
>However, wouldn't that have the same in term of performance and deadlock
>chance? In another word, wouldn't sqlserver have to do the similar scanning
>to reenforce the constraint?
It creates an index. It's very efficient. Try it!
J.|||As J. pointed out, when you put a UNIQUE constraint on a table, an index
is created to support the constraint. Row locks can be used once
there's an index.
SK
Zeng wrote:
>It's a good idea, I just didn't think of it as a unique compound keys.
>However, wouldn't that have the same in term of performance and deadlock
>chance? In another word, wouldn't sqlserver have to do the similar scanning
>to reenforce the constraint?
>
>"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
>news:uVod32I6EHA.2512@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>Zeng,
>> It would help to see your CREATE TABLE statement, but it sounds like
>>you want (broker, file_name) to be unique. If the broker is also a column
>>in your table, just declare a UNIQUE constraint, as in
>>create table AllFiles (
>> broker_id int not null references brokers(id),
>> file_name nvarchar(200),
>> other_stuff varchar(80),
>> unique (broker_id, file_name)
>>)
>>or to add this constraint to the existing table:
>>alter table AllFiles
>> add constraint AllFiles_broker_file unique(broker_id, file_name)
>>If this isn't what you want, you'll have to post the CREATE TABLE
>>statement and explain what "within a broker" or "within each company"
>>means.
>>Steve Kass
>>Drew University
>>
>>Zeng wrote:
>>
>>Hi,
>>I'm dealing with a database that is used to contain files for multiple
>>client companies, in one table I would like to enforce the uniqueness of
>>
>the
>
>>file name column within a broker (that is file name must be unique within
>>each company). Currently I reinforce this with a trigger on update and
>>insert event and count for the duplicates within the broker, it causes
>>
>lots
>
>>of deadlocks because it has to scan and lock up too many rows (I have to
>>stick with the Repeat Read Isolation level.) I'm pretty sure that it's
>>
>not
>
>>the only cause of deadlock but it should be one of them. Has anybody
>>
>known
>
>>how to resolve this or have any comment advice that can share with me?
>>thanks!!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Local MDF Files--can I make this work?

Ok, so I'm upgrading a single user vb 6-Access app to a multi-user VS2005-Sq
l
Server app. The client would like to move to SQL Server yet we are not read
y
to do so yet. The problem is that I can not install anything (sql Server or
Sql Express) on these servers for now. Later on we will be able to. For no
w
I must use a local database. I do have access to use a file share.
We do have a copy of SQL Server 2005 to work with it just isn't on the
server. I have created a project and upgraded the database to Sql Server.
I'm wondering is there a way to use a disconnected mdf and access it on the
fileshare? Can I just place the .mdf file on a shared drive and create a
connection to that mdf? Or can it be done some other way?
The reason I am pushing towards this is I want to develop using the
System.data.sqlserver objects instead of the system.data.oledb object now so
I don't need to upgrade the code in the future? I am going to give it a try
but I would love some advise on this topic.
Thanks,Greg,
If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You could
create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to the
Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
files.
Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
Barry|||Barry,
Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server intalled
on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf file to
the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
"Barry" wrote:

> Greg,
> If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You could
> create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
> on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to the
> Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
> You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
> files.
> Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
> Barry
>|||What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
.mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
"Greg P" wrote:
> Barry,
> Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server intalle
d
> on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf file
to
> the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
> guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
>
> "Barry" wrote:
>|||I would not use fileshares for db access - it is not recommended. You can,
however, install sql express on local pc. That will attach to DB and other
clients can network into the instance. With local DB mode, a sql express
instance is created dynamically and locks the db file, so only that instance
can "use" the db.
William Stacey [MVP]
"Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:6734747C-FCA3-484E-B4A0-105BC2774272@.microsoft.com...
| What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
| data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
| .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
|
|
|
| "Greg P" wrote:
|
| > Barry,
| >
| > Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server
intalled
| > on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf
file to
| > the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
| > guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
| >
| > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
| >
| >
| > "Barry" wrote:
| >
| > > Greg,
| > >
| > > If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You
could
| > > create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installed
| > > on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to
the
| > > Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Server.
| > > You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
| > > files.
| > >
| > > Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
| > >
| > > Barry
| > >
| > >|||you don't need multiple instance. 10 users can access the same database mdf
file on one instance of SQL Exp.
and if each user needs his own version, then
let them copy the mdf file to their machine, install their own sql express
and attach the db.
-Omnibuzz
--
Please post ddls and sample data for your queries and close the thread if
you got the answer for your question.
"Greg P" wrote:
> What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach the
> data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to one
> .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
>
> "Greg P" wrote:
>|||I think this answers my question, but I want to repeat what I'm understandin
g
to make sure, there are 3 points below.
1) If I were to install sql express on every client machine and attach the
database after install only one user could be attached to the database at on
e
time.
2) The only way to have multiple people use the program would be to copy the
database to the local computer, which would mean that updates would have to
be handled and the program wouldn't be real time. There would need to be a
good amount of code added that would be useless once SQL Server is up and
running.
3) I can have an access database that can be on the network and have
multiple users. This will lock certain tables but not the whole instance.
I think thats it. I need to develop using the system.data.oledb for now and
later on I can upgrade the code to the sql server objects if there a demand
for the better objects. The only thing I could throw into this scenario to
make it more complicated was I thought maybe I could create a XML object fro
m
the database and use that as my datasource? I still wouldn't be using the
sql server objects though I thought it was an intersting idea.
Let me know if this all seems right to yall.
Thanks again,
"William Stacey [MVP]" wrote:

> I would not use fileshares for db access - it is not recommended. You can
,
> however, install sql express on local pc. That will attach to DB and othe
r
> clients can network into the instance. With local DB mode, a sql express
> instance is created dynamically and locks the db file, so only that instan
ce
> can "use" the db.
> --
> William Stacey [MVP]
> "Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:6734747C-FCA3-484E-B4A0-105BC2774272@.microsoft.com...
> | What about installing SQL Express wiht my program and having it attach t
he
> | data base? Could I have multiple instances of SQL express attached to o
ne
> | .mdf file (i'm looking at about 10 users)?
> |
> |
> |
> | "Greg P" wrote:
> |
> | > Barry,
> | >
> | > Unforutuanltly that wasn't the question. I do not have SQL Server
> intalled
> | > on the Server. I want to create the database and just move the .mdf
> file to
> | > the file share and access it with out having sql server insalled. I'm
> | > guessing I can't do this and I must use an .mdb but I'm hoping...
> | >
> | > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms233817.aspx
> | >
> | >
> | > "Barry" wrote:
> | >
> | > > Greg,
> | > >
> | > > If you're asking whether you can move the Database then yes. You
> could
> | > > create the Database on your local machine. Then when SQL is installe
d
> | > > on your Server you could detach the DB, move the mdf & ldf files to
> the
> | > > Server and then attach them to the new SQL Installation on the Serve
r.
> | > > You would just have to point to the new locations for the mdf & ldf
> | > > files.
> | > >
> | > > Was that the question or have I missed the point completely? :-)
> | > >
> | > > Barry
> | > >
> | > >
>
>|||You can have multiple users on SQL Express, all on the same database. If I
understand correctly you are limited to 10 users.
If you install SQL Server (or SQL Express) on one machine on the network
(server or PC) and have all users access the database on that machine, then
they will all be using the same data at the same time. I think this is what
you want?
If you install a database on every PC and have users access it locally, then
they will each have their own database and will not affect each other. I
don't think this is what you are looking for.
"Greg P" <gsp@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:29BA7A55-C4B5-4DEF-B75E-84681E5028F7@.microsoft.com...
> I think this answers my question, but I want to repeat what I'm
understanding
> to make sure, there are 3 points below.
> 1) If I were to install sql express on every client machine and attach the
> database after install only one user could be attached to the database at
one
> time.
> 2) The only way to have multiple people use the program would be to copy
the
> database to the local computer, which would mean that updates would have
to
> be handled and the program wouldn't be real time. There would need to be
a
> good amount of code added that would be useless once SQL Server is up and
> running.
> 3) I can have an access database that can be on the network and have
> multiple users. This will lock certain tables but not the whole instance.
> I think thats it. I need to develop using the system.data.oledb for now
and
> later on I can upgrade the code to the sql server objects if there a
demand
> for the better objects. The only thing I could throw into this scenario
to
> make it more complicated was I thought maybe I could create a XML object
from
> the database and use that as my datasource? I still wouldn't be using the
> sql server objects though I thought it was an intersting idea.
> Let me know if this all seems right to yall.
> Thanks again,
> "William Stacey [MVP]" wrote:
>
can,
other
express
instance
the
one
I'm
installed
to
Server.
ldf|||I can't install sql server or sql express on the computer that has the file
share on it. I do not have permisions now. I will in the future, but I am
developing now. All i have to work with is a file share.
I can use access by placing it on the file share and have multiple users
access it as long as they have the access runtime on their computer, is ther
e
anyway to use sql express to do this same sort of configuration? Or is ther
e
another configuration using an mdf with outh having the software installed
that can support multiple users?
From what I understand the answer is no... but I thought it was a good
question to confirm on.
Thanx,
"Omnibuzz" wrote:
> you don't need multiple instance. 10 users can access the same database md
f
> file on one instance of SQL Exp.
> and if each user needs his own version, then
> let them copy the mdf file to their machine, install their own sql express
> and attach the db.
>
> -Omnibuzz
> --
> Please post ddls and sample data for your queries and close the thread if
> you got the answer for your question.
>
> "Greg P" wrote:
>|||In short no. You can't use the SQL data files directly as you are
trying to do.

local ip address

i've got a ms access mdb connected to a sql server on the internet.
whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
something?
the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
riyazYou can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate the
net_address to an IP address.
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
<rmanchu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137653314.617807.262180@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> i've got a ms access mdb connected to a sql server on the internet.
> whats the quickest way to get the ipaddress on the client machine from
> the client machine? since there is a existing connection, shudn't there
> be a simple method call that returns the ipaddress on the connection or
> something?
> the solutions i've seen r very ugly :(
> riyaz
>|||yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
clean function that relates the mac to the ipaddr. the code on the
mvp.org site returns a collection which i don't think can be related to
the mac
how can this be done?
? possible bug?
!!! i noticed the following when using access2003 over the internet to
sqlserver2000 !!!
when using my laptop with wifi, the net_address returned by
sysprocesses is INCORRECT. it returns my LAN mac_address when it shud
return my wifi mac_address since i'm connected the internet thru wifi.
can anybody duplicate this?
riyaz|||>> yup i'm already getting the mac address like that. but i can't find any
All you have to do is to use the address resolution protocol mapping. On
your command prompt, simply type in ARP -a. It should give you a table of
mapping between all MAC & IP addresses.
It is not that hard to get this information from t-SQL ( script or within a
procedure )using master..xp_cmdshell & get the IP address.
Anith|||hi.

> You can get the MAC address of the client by doing this...
> select net_address from master..sysprocesses where spid = @.@.spid
am already doing this

> You then need to do processing outside of SQL Server in order to relate th
e
> net_address to an IP address.
am working in access2003. could u give me an idea as to how i might go
about doing this?
i have 2 ip-addresses both dynamically allocated. i wud prefer a
general solution
riyaz|||I wrote this here just for you:
CREATE PROCEDURE usp_getboundAddresses
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#SomeTable') IS NULL
CREATE TABLE #SomeTable
(
ShellOutput VARCHAR(500)
)
INSERT INTO #SomeTable
EXEC xp_cmdshell 'nbtstat -a .'
SELECT
SUBSTRING( ShellOutput,
CHARINDEX('[',ShellOutput)+1,
LEN(ShellOutput) - CHARINDEX(']',ShellOutput) -2
) AS BoundAddress
from #SomeTable
WHERE ShellOutput LIKE '%Node IpAddress%' --the important lines
AND ShellOutput NOT LIKE '%0.0.0.0%' --Unassigned addresses
DROP TABLE #SomeTable
END
Returning the network adresses of the server.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install

I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Colette
Hi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette

Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install

I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQL
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette

Local Database Issue with SQL 2000 Install

I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with SQ
L
SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user logs
on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise Manager.
I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
and they get the local database to show up as well.
Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's needed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
ColetteHi Colette,
Perhaps it's been removed. Have they tried just registering the server in
Enterprise Manager? (ie: right-click the SQL Servers group in the main tree
and choose the option to register a server)
HTH,
Greg
"Colette" <Colette@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:084583C7-EA4C-4BC5-8EA1-1D0F448FDA32@.microsoft.com...
> I've got a user with a new HP desktop requesting SQL 2000 Developer Server
> and Client Tools to be installed. When I install the software along with
> SQL
> SP4, the local database shows up in Enterprise Manager. When the user
> logs
> on to the same machine, the local database is missing in Enterprise
> Manager.
> I had another user with the same type of permissions log on to the machine
> and they get the local database to show up as well.
> Why can't this particular person get the local database to show up in
> Enterprise Manger when they log on? Is there a registry edit that's
> needed?
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Colette

Local Application Launch

Hi,

Does anyone know if there is a way to launch a local application on a users machine from a report?

We have a bespoke thick client system running which accepts a command line execution i.e. c:\program\programx.exe ref=xyz. I would like to lauch this from a report if possible passing in the ref - has anyone done anything like this before as I presume we may need to add code to do this.

We could use client side script and wshost however IE doesnt like this unless its a trusted site so dont want to go down this route if possible although this may be the answer.

Thanks in advance for your help

Dan.

ok i've found a solution :-

As this is a local intranet scenario I have full access to the clients hence the registry. To make this work I can add the following to the registry on each pc :-

Add to a new key to HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT called 'myprog'
Add an empty string to this key called 'URL Protocol'
Add the sub-keys: \shell\open\command
Set the value of the default string inside the command key to: " c:\my prog\prog.exe %1"

on your report set your link to be
="myprog:" & Fields!fieldvalue

Thanks

Dan.