help! scheduled package does nothing...

I am totally lost on this one:
I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
server through a propriatary odbc driver.
When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
is made to both sides
and data flows nicely.
When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
single record
retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1 second
into thin air...
Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same user
(a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
the sqlserver machine.
Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
Any ideas?
At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
TIA
Rea
Rea
Have you checked that SQL Agent is running?
"Rea Peleg" <rea_p@.afek.co.il> wrote in message
news:uw18R6SLEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am totally lost on this one:
> I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
> server through a propriatary odbc driver.
> When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
> is made to both sides
> and data flows nicely.
> When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
> single record
> retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1
second
> into thin air...
> Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same
user
> (a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
> the sqlserver machine.
> Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
> The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
> Any ideas?
> At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
> TIA
> Rea
>

help! scheduled package does nothing...

I am totally lost on this one:
I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
server through a propriatary odbc driver.
When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
is made to both sides
and data flows nicely.
When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
single record
retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1 second
into thin air...
Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same user
(a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
the sqlserver machine.
Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
Any ideas'
At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
TIA
ReaRea
Have you checked that SQL Agent is running?
"Rea Peleg" <rea_p@.afek.co.il> wrote in message
news:uw18R6SLEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am totally lost on this one:
> I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
> server through a propriatary odbc driver.
> When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
> is made to both sides
> and data flows nicely.
> When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
> single record
> retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1
second
> into thin air...
> Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same
user
> (a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
> the sqlserver machine.
> Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
> The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
> Any ideas'
> At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
> TIA
> Rea
>

help! scheduled package does nothing...

I am totally lost on this one:
I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
server through a propriatary odbc driver.
When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
is made to both sides
and data flows nicely.
When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
single record
retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1 second
into thin air...
Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same user
(a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
the sqlserver machine.
Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
Any ideas'
At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
TIA
ReaRea
Have you checked that SQL Agent is running?
"Rea Peleg" <rea_p@.afek.co.il> wrote in message
news:uw18R6SLEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am totally lost on this one:
> I have a dts package which transforms data from tabula database into sql
> server through a propriatary odbc driver.
> When executed manually (through 'execute package') all is well, connection
> is made to both sides
> and data flows nicely.
> When I schedule this package to a job it ran but nothing happaned.. Not a
> single record
> retrieved, nor did I get any error massage. It just vanished after 1
second
> into thin air...
> Both the sqlserver and the sqlserveragent services are ran by the same
user
> (a domain administrator) which is also the logged on user on
> the sqlserver machine.
> Sqlserver version is 2000 with sp installed.
> The server's os is windows server 2003 enterprise edition.
> Any ideas'
> At this stage any suggestions will be greatly appriciated.
> TIA
> Rea
>sql

HELP! ORDER BY in views no longer works in SQL2K5

Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not write
these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also do not
have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot move the
clause into the appropriate place.
This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?That was an undocumented behavior of SQL Server 2000, and
unfortunately was discovered and was put into use by many. The
problem with undocumented behaviors is that they can change without
warning, with a new release or even a service pack. This one stopped
working with SQL Server 2005.
If you want data returned in a specific order, the ONLY way to be sure
to get it is with an ORDER BY on the (outer) query.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:21:32 -0700, "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT
yahoo DOT com> wrote:
>Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
>with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not write
>these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also do not
>have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot move the
>clause into the appropriate place.
>This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
>|||What you are seeing the the appropriate behavior. A VIEW 'should' not order
data UNLESS it is a necessary part of obtaining the required results, e.g.,
SELECT TOP 5%.
In the past, a VIEW would sometimes, but contrary to 'what should have been'
select the TOP 100% and then ORDER BY as a way to 'kludge' a sorted
resultset. TOP 100 percent and ORDER BY is ignored in SQL 2005.
In SQL 2005, it is the responsibility of the query that accesses the VIEW to
sort the data after the receiving the view resultset.
If the VIEW definitions are in the database (as they should be), you can
easily correct the view definintion. However, as you note, the application
code will have to be corrected in order for the queries to produce properly
sorted results.
This is another illustration of how having all data access operate through
Stored Procedures facilitates 'robustness'. If Stored Procedures were used,
it would be very easy for you to correct the problem.
You have few options.
Contact whoever wrote the code and request/require that it be corrected
since it was not written 'properly' and used unsupported features.
OR,
make a horrendous 'kludge'.
(1) Rename the views, and
(2) Create new stored procedures using the existing VIEW names, and in
those stored procedures, write the proper queries requesting data from the
renamed views and sorting it appropriately. (3) Test, Test, Test, Test, and
then Test.
Hopefully, someone will come up with other suggestions that will make this
outrageous kludge so difficult to stomach that you won't seriously consider
it.
--
Arnie Rowland
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT yahoo DOT com> wrote in message
news:%23jUN%23efqGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
> with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not
> write these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also
> do not have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot
> move the clause into the appropriate place.
> This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
>|||Before everyone fires off on me, the 'horrendous 'kludge' idea was meant to
be tongue in cheek.
The joke sould have never gotten past the 'Test' stage.
--
Arnie Rowland
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:el52YxfqGHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What you are seeing the the appropriate behavior. A VIEW 'should' not
> order data UNLESS it is a necessary part of obtaining the required
> results, e.g., SELECT TOP 5%.
> In the past, a VIEW would sometimes, but contrary to 'what should have
> been' select the TOP 100% and then ORDER BY as a way to 'kludge' a sorted
> resultset. TOP 100 percent and ORDER BY is ignored in SQL 2005.
> In SQL 2005, it is the responsibility of the query that accesses the VIEW
> to sort the data after the receiving the view resultset.
> If the VIEW definitions are in the database (as they should be), you can
> easily correct the view definintion. However, as you note, the application
> code will have to be corrected in order for the queries to produce
> properly sorted results.
> This is another illustration of how having all data access operate through
> Stored Procedures facilitates 'robustness'. If Stored Procedures were
> used, it would be very easy for you to correct the problem.
> You have few options.
> Contact whoever wrote the code and request/require that it be corrected
> since it was not written 'properly' and used unsupported features.
> OR,
> make a horrendous 'kludge'.
> (1) Rename the views, and
> (2) Create new stored procedures using the existing VIEW names, and in
> those stored procedures, write the proper queries requesting data from the
> renamed views and sorting it appropriately. (3) Test, Test, Test, Test,
> and then Test.
> Hopefully, someone will come up with other suggestions that will make this
> outrageous kludge so difficult to stomach that you won't seriously
> consider it.
> --
> Arnie Rowland
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT yahoo DOT com> wrote in message
> news:%23jUN%23efqGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
>> with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not
>> write these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I
>> also do not have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I
>> cannot move the clause into the appropriate place.
>> This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
>|||Tim Greenwood wrote:
> Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
> with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not write
> these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also do not
> have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot move the
> clause into the appropriate place.
> This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
There is no change in SQL Server 2005. The ordering of rows is
undefined in the case of queries that don't specify ORDER BY. ORDER BY
in the view doesn't affect this.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

HELP! ORDER BY in views no longer works in SQL2K5

Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not write
these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also do not
have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot move the
clause into the appropriate place.
This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?That was an undocumented behavior of SQL Server 2000, and
unfortunately was discovered and was put into use by many. The
problem with undocumented behaviors is that they can change without
warning, with a new release or even a service pack. This one stopped
working with SQL Server 2005.
If you want data returned in a specific order, the ONLY way to be sure
to get it is with an ORDER BY on the (outer) query.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:21:32 -0700, "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT
yahoo DOT com> wrote:

>Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
>with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not writ
e
>these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also do not
>have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot move the
>clause into the appropriate place.
>This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
>|||What you are seeing the the appropriate behavior. A VIEW 'should' not order
data UNLESS it is a necessary part of obtaining the required results, e.g.,
SELECT TOP 5%.
In the past, a VIEW would sometimes, but contrary to 'what should have been'
select the TOP 100% and then ORDER BY as a way to 'kludge' a sorted
resultset. TOP 100 percent and ORDER BY is ignored in SQL 2005.
In SQL 2005, it is the responsibility of the query that accesses the VIEW to
sort the data after the receiving the view resultset.
If the VIEW definitions are in the database (as they should be), you can
easily correct the view definintion. However, as you note, the application
code will have to be corrected in order for the queries to produce properly
sorted results.
This is another illustration of how having all data access operate through
Stored Procedures facilitates 'robustness'. If Stored Procedures were used,
it would be very easy for you to correct the problem.
You have few options.
Contact whoever wrote the code and request/require that it be corrected
since it was not written 'properly' and used unsupported features.
OR,
make a horrendous 'kludge'.
(1) Rename the views, and
(2) Create new stored procedures using the existing VIEW names, and in
those stored procedures, write the proper queries requesting data from the
renamed views and sorting it appropriately. (3) Test, Test, Test, Test, and
then Test.
Hopefully, someone will come up with other suggestions that will make this
outrageous kludge so difficult to stomach that you won't seriously consider
it.
Arnie Rowland
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT yahoo DOT com> wrote in message
news:%23jUN%23efqGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Is there some setting somewhere that would break this? I have some views
> with order by clauses in them that are now totally ignored. I did not
> write these...I would never put an order by clause in the view but I also
> do not have access to the csharp code that is calling this so I cannot
> move the clause into the appropriate place.
> This worked fine under SQL2000 -- is there some setting I'm missing?
>|||Before everyone fires off on me, the 'horrendous 'kludge' idea was meant to
be tongue in cheek.
The joke sould have never gotten past the 'Test' stage.
Arnie Rowland
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
"Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com> wrote in message
news:el52YxfqGHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What you are seeing the the appropriate behavior. A VIEW 'should' not
> order data UNLESS it is a necessary part of obtaining the required
> results, e.g., SELECT TOP 5%.
> In the past, a VIEW would sometimes, but contrary to 'what should have
> been' select the TOP 100% and then ORDER BY as a way to 'kludge' a sorted
> resultset. TOP 100 percent and ORDER BY is ignored in SQL 2005.
> In SQL 2005, it is the responsibility of the query that accesses the VIEW
> to sort the data after the receiving the view resultset.
> If the VIEW definitions are in the database (as they should be), you can
> easily correct the view definintion. However, as you note, the application
> code will have to be corrected in order for the queries to produce
> properly sorted results.
> This is another illustration of how having all data access operate through
> Stored Procedures facilitates 'robustness'. If Stored Procedures were
> used, it would be very easy for you to correct the problem.
> You have few options.
> Contact whoever wrote the code and request/require that it be corrected
> since it was not written 'properly' and used unsupported features.
> OR,
> make a horrendous 'kludge'.
> (1) Rename the views, and
> (2) Create new stored procedures using the existing VIEW names, and in
> those stored procedures, write the proper queries requesting data from the
> renamed views and sorting it appropriately. (3) Test, Test, Test, Test,
> and then Test.
> Hopefully, someone will come up with other suggestions that will make this
> outrageous kludge so difficult to stomach that you won't seriously
> consider it.
> --
> Arnie Rowland
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
>
> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood AT yahoo DOT com> wrote in message
> news:%23jUN%23efqGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>sql

Help!

Okay I'm totally new to SQL, I need to write a program that has 2 tables, can any one help me get started?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostrider

Okay I'm totally new to SQL, I need to write a program that has 2 tables, can any one help me get started?

Can you give us any more specifics?

What kind of program are you writing, what are the specs? What platform/programming language are you using?|||I'm using MS SQL 2005 Express. I'm trying to write a INSERT statement pulling data from my online school database and I'm not sure how to do it.|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostrider

Okay I'm totally new to SQL, I need to write a program that has 2 tables, can any one help me get started?

Hi,
can you tell me clearly your requirements.really you want help for creating tables|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostrider

I'm using MS SQL 2005 Express. I'm trying to write a INSERT statement pulling data from my online school database and I'm not sure how to do it.

If I understand correctly, you are trying to insert data from one table into another.

If these tables exist on different platforms you will need to write an application that does this.

I will assume both tables are in the same database.

INSERT INTO Table1(Column1,Column2)
SELECT Column1,Column2
FROM Table2|||Thanks this is what I was looking for. Thanks again!!!!