DataSources

I have come into a company where my predesessor used a TON of differently
named RDS files to connect to the same SQL Server Database. My suspicion is
that he thought that datasources were the same as datasets and created one
for each.
Is there any good reason to do this?
Should they all have been changed to be something generic like
"ConnectTo{servername}Production.RDS (instead of {Report Name}.RDS)
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
KeithIm sure there are different schools of thought, but I enjoy using all the
same name and have never had reason to make them all different, nor have I
had any issues.
Michael C
"greenmtnsun" wrote:
> I have come into a company where my predesessor used a TON of differently
> named RDS files to connect to the same SQL Server Database. My suspicion is
> that he thought that datasources were the same as datasets and created one
> for each.
> Is there any good reason to do this?
> Should they all have been changed to be something generic like
> "ConnectTo{servername}Production.RDS (instead of {Report Name}.RDS)
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Keith
>
>sql

Datasource-Microsoft Visual Studio

Hi

I am new to all SQL Related. I am trying to create a datasource to our old database we used in the company to write reports on the data. when I create a new data source and enter all required info, when testing the connection, i get a reply that I do not have the necessary permissions to use this object, although my account is specified as an administrator? can somebody please explain this to me.

I am moving this to the SQL Server Security forum.|||

From where you are connecting (trying) to this new database?

Is it from Reporting services or any other application?

|||it is saved on my computer.|||You might check the permission for the user when trying to create this D-source connection, if the user do not have corresponding database privileges then it will fail.

Datasource-Microsoft Visual Studio

Hi

I am new to all SQL Related. I am trying to create a datasource to our old database we used in the company to write reports on the data. when I create a new data source and enter all required info, when testing the connection, i get a reply that I do not have the necessary permissions to use this object, although my account is specified as an administrator? can somebody please explain this to me.

I am moving this to the SQL Server Security forum.|||

From where you are connecting (trying) to this new database?

Is it from Reporting services or any other application?

|||it is saved on my computer.|||You might check the permission for the user when trying to create this D-source connection, if the user do not have corresponding database privileges then it will fail.

Datasource-Microsoft Visual Studio

Hi

I am new to all SQL Related. I am trying to create a datasource to our old database we used in the company to write reports on the data. when I create a new data source and enter all required info, when testing the connection, i get a reply that I do not have the necessary permissions to use this object, although my account is specified as an administrator? can somebody please explain this to me.

Hi Hanel O,

Try posting this query to the MSDN SQL Server Data Access Forum:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=87&SiteID=1&bcsi_scan_A9C07E6225287F19=z5cf+RkCipiHryeey+QUUQYAAAAmrYMB&bcsi_scan_filename=ShowForum.aspx

Also here is the MSDN SQL Server Forum main page, where you will find many SQL forums dedicated to different aspects of Microsoft SQL Server:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/default.aspx?ForumGroupID=19&SiteID=1

Also try looking in SQL Server Books Online, which comes as part of the SQL Server install package.

Hope this helps,

Frank

Databases

I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
still be OK?
Thanks in advance.
DarrylThe link here should help you
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
_03_378k.asp
I suggest making 2 maintenance plans. I would do one for your System
Databases and select All System Databases in the wizard. Then do another
for All User Databases. For Backups I also have the wizard put all backups
in their own subdirectories. This makes viewing easier and you can easily
see what is going on.
Jeff Duncan
MCDBA, MCSE+I
"Darryl" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:824801c431db$326c6560$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
> payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
> this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
> transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
> up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
> is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
> of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
> want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
> the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
> event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
> still be OK?
> Thanks in advance.
> Darryl|||in addition to the answers you have been given, might I suggest you ask your
company to put a little investment into training for you (I am assuming that
a payroll system is quite important?!)
--
Br,
Mark Broadbent
mcdba , mcse+i
=============
"Darryl" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:824801c431db$326c6560$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
> payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
> this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
> transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
> up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
> is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
> of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
> want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
> the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
> event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
> still be OK?
> Thanks in advance.
> Darryl

Databases

I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
still be OK?
Thanks in advance.
DarrylThe link here should help you
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/createdb/cm_8_des_03_378k.asp
I suggest making 2 maintenance plans. I would do one for your System
Databases and select All System Databases in the wizard. Then do another
for All User Databases. For Backups I also have the wizard put all backups
in their own subdirectories. This makes viewing easier and you can easily
see what is going on.
--
Jeff Duncan
MCDBA, MCSE+I
"Darryl" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:824801c431db$326c6560$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
> payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
> this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
> transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
> up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
> is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
> of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
> want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
> the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
> event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
> still be OK?
> Thanks in advance.
> Darryl|||Darryl,
this is a simplification, but a typical plan is to do a
full back up of each of your user databases once a day and
much more frequent transaction log backups (eg every 30
mins). The log backups should be truncated, apart from in
the case of the 'live' log for disaster recovery.
The system databases should also be backed up and their
frequency will depend on how often you add logins, jobs
etc, but perhaps you might start with once a day.
All of this could be done using maintenance plans. Some of
the alternative options are not available in maintenance
plans (eg differential backups), but for this strategy it
is OK.
In books on line (BOL) there are plenty of details
explaining the various posibilities and setup techniques
(see "Backing Up and Restoring Databases").
HTH
Paul Ibison|||in addition to the answers you have been given, might I suggest you ask your
company to put a little investment into training for you (I am assuming that
a payroll system is quite important?!)
--
--
Br,
Mark Broadbent
mcdba , mcse+i
============="Darryl" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:824801c431db$326c6560$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have been assigned the task of DBA for our company's
> payroll system running on SQL server 2k. My question is
> this - In the maintenance plan, database backups,
> transaction backups, etc...under properties it is backing
> up 'master', everything is fine. However, our database
> is 'WFT' shouldn't the database be set to WFT instead
> of 'master'? Or does master contain all databases? I just
> want to be sure we are getting the proper backup. Also
> the job has the No Truncate command which causes the
> event 17055. Can this command be omitted and everything
> still be OK?
> Thanks in advance.
> Darryl

Database with Many Tables for different applications

Hello,
I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one database w
ith ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primary keys and handle everything else in the application.
My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the applications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but using different tables?
Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiveness.
Thank you for your time,
Angela
http://www.sqljunkies.com/Article/7F...8946C8D0C.scuk for information on common symptoms and tools to assess the performance.
HTH
--
Satya SKJ
Visit http://www.sql-server-performance.com for tips and articles on Performance topic.
"Angela" wrote:

> Hello,
> I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one database
with ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
> We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primary keys and handle everything else in the application.
> My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the applications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but using different tables?
> Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiveness.
> Thank you for your time,
> Angela

Database with Many Tables for different applications

Hello,
I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of
tables. There are many applications that use different tables in this datab
ase and the users are spread throughout the business areas of the company.
The idea for one database w
ith ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to b
ackup 1 database instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just primar
y keys and handle everything else in the application.
My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the appl
ications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in the
database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but usi
ng different tables?
Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this model
are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectivenes
s.
Thank you for your time,
Angelahttp://www.sqljunkies.com/Article/7...E8946C8D0C.scuk
for information on common symptoms and tools to assess the performance.
HTH
--
--
Satya SKJ
Visit http://www.sql-server-performance.com for tips and articles on Perform
ance topic.
"Angela" wrote:

> Hello,
> I work for a company that chose to implement one database with LOTS (126) of table
s. There are many applications that use different tables in this database and the us
ers are spread throughout the business areas of the company. The idea for one datab
ase
with ALL the tables the company uses was for ease of backup (only having to backup 1 databas
e instead of the 20 or so for each applcation).
> We do not use stored procedures or relationships on SQL server - just prim
ary keys and handle everything else in the application.
> My question is this: Does this sort of setup impede performance of the ap
plications or SQL database? If many users are hitting a set of tables in th
e database - does this interfere with other users in the same database but u
sing different tables?
> Any insight would be appreciated on this topic. Implementers of this mode
l are of the mainframe mindset and I would like validation to its effectiven
ess.
> Thank you for your time,
> Angela