Can we disable SA Account in SQL Server.

Hi,
I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
disable SA Account.
But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
Please give me reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.Hi
You cannot disable SA account. You can remove BUILTIN/Administrators login
to ensure that users of Windows admin group do not get autamically access
to SQL Server
<csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> disable SA Account.
> But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> Please give me reply.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Uri Dimant wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> You cannot disable SA account. You can remove BUILTIN/Administrators login
> to ensure that users of Windows admin group do not get autamically access
> to SQL Server
>
> <csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If you are usin SQL Server 2005 you can disable it by
alter login sa disable
even you can rename it
alter login sa with name = <new name for sa>
Regards
Amish Shah
http://shahamishm.tripod.com|||amish
> disable SA Account.
Yep, but he is using SQL Server 2000
"amish" <shahamishm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155030451.500469.238540@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>
> If you are usin SQL Server 2005 you can disable it by
> alter login sa disable
> even you can rename it
> alter login sa with name = <new name for sa>
> Regards
> Amish Shah
> http://shahamishm.tripod.com
>|||With SQL 2000, Give the sa account a complex and strong password, lock the
password in a safe, and don't allow anyone to use the sa account.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> disable SA Account.
> But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> Please give me reply.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Hi all,
Thanks for your Reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> With SQL 2000, Give the sa account a complex and strong password, lock the
> password in a safe, and don't allow anyone to use the sa account.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> <csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Can we disable SA Account in SQL Server.

Hi,
I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
disable SA Account.
But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
Please give me reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.Hi
You cannot disable SA account. You can remove BUILTIN/Administrators login
to ensure that users of Windows admin group do not get autamically access
to SQL Server
<csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> disable SA Account.
> But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> Please give me reply.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Uri Dimant wrote:
> Hi
> You cannot disable SA account. You can remove BUILTIN/Administrators login
> to ensure that users of Windows admin group do not get autamically access
> to SQL Server
>
> <csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> > disable SA Account.
> >
> > But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> >
> > Please give me reply.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Sajid C.
> >
> >
If you are usin SQL Server 2005 you can disable it by
alter login sa disable
even you can rename it
alter login sa with name = <new name for sa>
Regards
Amish Shah
http://shahamishm.tripod.com|||amish
>> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> disable SA Account.
Yep, but he is using SQL Server 2000
"amish" <shahamishm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155030451.500469.238540@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>> Hi
>> You cannot disable SA account. You can remove BUILTIN/Administrators
>> login
>> to ensure that users of Windows admin group do not get autamically
>> access
>> to SQL Server
>>
>> <csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
>> > disable SA Account.
>> >
>> > But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
>> >
>> > Please give me reply.
>> >
>> > Thanks & Regards,
>> > Sajid C.
>> >
>> >
> If you are usin SQL Server 2005 you can disable it by
> alter login sa disable
> even you can rename it
> alter login sa with name = <new name for sa>
> Regards
> Amish Shah
> http://shahamishm.tripod.com
>|||With SQL 2000, Give the sa account a complex and strong password, lock the
password in a safe, and don't allow anyone to use the sa account.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> disable SA Account.
> But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> Please give me reply.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sajid C.
>|||Hi all,
Thanks for your Reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Sajid C.
Arnie Rowland wrote:
> With SQL 2000, Give the sa account a complex and strong password, lock the
> password in a safe, and don't allow anyone to use the sa account.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> <csajid@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155022050.211678.192190@.b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3. For Security purpose i want to
> > disable SA Account.
> >
> > But i am not sure that, we can disable SA account.
> >
> > Please give me reply.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Sajid C.
> >

Can timestamp columns be updated?

Hi,
Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
2000 (SP3)?
-- Many thanks, OskarNot directly.
Linchi
"Oskar" wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
> 2000 (SP3)?
> -- Many thanks, Oskar
>|||update the row to itself, i.e. update MyTableName set Col1=Col1 where pk=pk
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB373431-C1DB-4A5D-B02D-18B688203F99@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not directly.
> Linchi
> "Oskar" wrote:
>|||Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal @.@.DBTS
counter.
Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> update the row to itself, i.e. update MyTableName set Col1=Col1 where pk=p
k
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BB373431-C1DB-4A5D-B02D-18B688203F99@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9211B6D-90B4-43B2-AD80-F068FB8ACF17@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
> timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal
@.@.DBTS
> counter.
There is no way. Not really sure why you'd want to anyway. There's
probably better ways of doing what you want to do.

> Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
> counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?|||No, you can't directly update it. You can't do something like the following:
update myTable
set my_timestamp_column = ...
Linchi
"Oskar" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
> timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal @.@.DBT
S
> counter.
> Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
> counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
>

Can timestamp columns be updated?

Hi,
Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
2000 (SP3)?
-- Many thanks, OskarNot directly.
Linchi
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
> 2000 (SP3)?
> -- Many thanks, Oskar
>|||update the row to itself, i.e. update MyTableName set Col1=Col1 where pk=pk
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB373431-C1DB-4A5D-B02D-18B688203F99@.microsoft.com...
> Not directly.
> Linchi
> "Oskar" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
>> 2000 (SP3)?
>> -- Many thanks, Oskar|||Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal @.@.DBTS
counter.
Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> update the row to itself, i.e. update MyTableName set Col1=Col1 where pk=pk
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BB373431-C1DB-4A5D-B02D-18B688203F99@.microsoft.com...
> > Not directly.
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Oskar" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
> >> 2000 (SP3)?
> >>
> >> -- Many thanks, Oskar
> >>
>
>|||"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9211B6D-90B4-43B2-AD80-F068FB8ACF17@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
> timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal
@.@.DBTS
> counter.
There is no way. Not really sure why you'd want to anyway. There's
probably better ways of doing what you want to do.
> Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
> counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?|||No, you can't directly update it. You can't do something like the following:
update myTable
set my_timestamp_column = ...
Linchi
"Oskar" wrote:
> Thanks. Not sure if this helps though. I really wanted to update the
> timestamp column with the value I choose not the one of the internal @.@.DBTS
> counter.
> Any ideas if there's a way of updating the value the internal @.@.DBTS
> counter, besides updating a zillion of records? Linchi?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> > update the row to itself, i.e. update MyTableName set Col1=Col1 where pk=pk
> >
> > --
> > Hilary Cotter
> > Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> > RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> >
> > This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> > positions, strategies or opinions.
> >
> > Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> >
> > Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> > http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:BB373431-C1DB-4A5D-B02D-18B688203F99@.microsoft.com...
> > > Not directly.
> > >
> > > Linchi
> > >
> > > "Oskar" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> Is there any way timestamp columns can be updated in Microsoft SQL Server
> > >> 2000 (SP3)?
> > >>
> > >> -- Many thanks, Oskar
> > >>
> >
> >
> >

can SQL 2000 still be used after the upgrade?

Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980sYou can have both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on the same box, but SQL 2000 must
be installed before SQL 2005. In your case, you upgraded, so there is only
one instance of SQL Server on your machine.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:A185952C-BB25-44E9-B5B9-00C3B5E0C2C6@.microsoft.com...
Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980s

can SQL 2000 still be used after the upgrade?

Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980s
You can have both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on the same box, but SQL 2000 must
be installed before SQL 2005. In your case, you upgraded, so there is only
one instance of SQL Server on your machine.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:A185952C-BB25-44E9-B5B9-00C3B5E0C2C6@.microsoft.com...
Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980s

can SQL 2000 still be used after the upgrade?

Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980sYou can have both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 on the same box, but SQL 2000 must
be installed before SQL 2005. In your case, you upgraded, so there is only
one instance of SQL Server on your machine.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:A185952C-BB25-44E9-B5B9-00C3B5E0C2C6@.microsoft.com...
Hello:
Let's say that you have SQL Server 2000 SP3 on a server, and let's say that
you upgrade SQL 2000 to 2005.
It's a long story as to why I ask, but is it possible after the upgrade to
utilize SQL 2000 still? Or, after you perform such an upgrade, should you
stay away from SQL 2000?
Can SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 co-exist on the same server like this? Or, is SQL
2000 "dead" after such an upgrade?
Generally, after I upgrade a product of any kind, I don't mess with the
older product afterward. That's why I ask.
Thanks!
childofthe1980s

can see sql2k sp3, but cannot connect?

With Enterprise manager, I can see a remote sql 2000 sp3 instance. I can al
so
see that port 1433 is open.
But, when I try to connect to it, I get the connection could not be
estiablished.
sql server does not exist or access denied.
I have pretty much all the port except for 1433 tcp and udp blocked.
How can I troubleshoot getting this connected. It is located on my local
network - so it is not a connection problem.
--
Thanks in advance, Les CaudleI think it was a name resolution problem, with so few ports open.
When I created a registration by ip address rather than name, it connected
immediately.
Confusing that the name showed up in Enterprise Manager. Would be nice if i
t
would automatically try to use just the ip (which it must know, as it can se
e
it).
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:17:14 -0500, Les Caudle <very@.tiredofspam.com> wrote:

>With Enterprise manager, I can see a remote sql 2000 sp3 instance. I can a
lso
>see that port 1433 is open.
>But, when I try to connect to it, I get the connection could not be
>estiablished.
>sql server does not exist or access denied.
>I have pretty much all the port except for 1433 tcp and udp blocked.
>How can I troubleshoot getting this connected. It is located on my local
>network - so it is not a connection problem.

can see sql2k sp3, but cannot connect?

With Enterprise manager, I can see a remote sql 2000 sp3 instance. I can also
see that port 1433 is open.
But, when I try to connect to it, I get the connection could not be
estiablished.
sql server does not exist or access denied.
I have pretty much all the port except for 1433 tcp and udp blocked.
How can I troubleshoot getting this connected. It is located on my local
network - so it is not a connection problem.
Thanks in advance, Les Caudle
I think it was a name resolution problem, with so few ports open.
When I created a registration by ip address rather than name, it connected
immediately.
Confusing that the name showed up in Enterprise Manager. Would be nice if it
would automatically try to use just the ip (which it must know, as it can see
it).
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:17:14 -0500, Les Caudle <very@.tiredofspam.com> wrote:

>With Enterprise manager, I can see a remote sql 2000 sp3 instance. I can also
>see that port 1433 is open.
>But, when I try to connect to it, I get the connection could not be
>estiablished.
>sql server does not exist or access denied.
>I have pretty much all the port except for 1433 tcp and udp blocked.
>How can I troubleshoot getting this connected. It is located on my local
>network - so it is not a connection problem.

Can OPTION (ROBUST PLAN) be used inside of a VIEW?

(SQL Server 2000, SP3)
Hello all!
I've got a VIEW whose use seems to require the OPTION (ROBUST PLAN) query hint.
(Otherwise it's very dependant on the "width" of my data -- and I'll get errors if it
exceeds 8094 bytes.)
Can this hint be incorporated into the VIEW itself? When I try that, it seems to fail,
but I'm wondering if I'm putting it in the right place?
However, if I do it outside the VIEW:
select * from MyView option (robust plan)
Then it works. But, I'd prefer not to have to change my code to incorporate the OPTION
(ROBUST PLAN) query hint everywhere that I reference this VIEW.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
John PetersonI don't see anything that states you can't use this in a view but your issue
may be outside the view itself. When you select against a view that selects
from views the optimizer tries to look at them all as a whole to get the
best plan. The view by itself may not run into this issue. I would try to
cut down the columns first and see if that helps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"John Peterson" <j0hnp@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ej$ah9IdDHA.2932@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> (SQL Server 2000, SP3)
> Hello all!
> I've got a VIEW whose use seems to require the OPTION (ROBUST PLAN) query
hint.
> (Otherwise it's very dependant on the "width" of my data -- and I'll get
errors if it
> exceeds 8094 bytes.)
> Can this hint be incorporated into the VIEW itself? When I try that, it
seems to fail,
> but I'm wondering if I'm putting it in the right place?
> However, if I do it outside the VIEW:
> select * from MyView option (robust plan)
> Then it works. But, I'd prefer not to have to change my code to
incorporate the OPTION
> (ROBUST PLAN) query hint everywhere that I reference this VIEW.
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks!
> John Peterson
>|||Hello Andrew!
Thanks for your help -- yeah, if I try to create a VIEW like:
create view Test
as
select * from sysobjects option (robust plan)
go
It will fail to create the VIEW (citing a syntax error near "option"). It's almost like I
can only have that OPTION clause "outside" of the VIEW. But, I don't want to have to
change a lot of code to explicitly put the OPTION clause in place for those objects that
are calling the VIEW -- I'd like to be able to do that in *one* place if at all possible.
Additional thoughts?
John Peterson
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uv9%23UBKdDHA.652@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I don't see anything that states you can't use this in a view but your issue
> may be outside the view itself. When you select against a view that selects
> from views the optimizer tries to look at them all as a whole to get the
> best plan. The view by itself may not run into this issue. I would try to
> cut down the columns first and see if that helps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "John Peterson" <j0hnp@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ej$ah9IdDHA.2932@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > (SQL Server 2000, SP3)
> >
> > Hello all!
> >
> > I've got a VIEW whose use seems to require the OPTION (ROBUST PLAN) query
> hint.
> > (Otherwise it's very dependant on the "width" of my data -- and I'll get
> errors if it
> > exceeds 8094 bytes.)
> >
> > Can this hint be incorporated into the VIEW itself? When I try that, it
> seems to fail,
> > but I'm wondering if I'm putting it in the right place?
> >
> > However, if I do it outside the VIEW:
> >
> > select * from MyView option (robust plan)
> >
> > Then it works. But, I'd prefer not to have to change my code to
> incorporate the OPTION
> > (ROBUST PLAN) query hint everywhere that I reference this VIEW.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > John Peterson
> >
> >
>|||Thanks, Olaf -- that's exactly what I tried. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to work
either. The only way to get that OPTION clause seems to be in a stored procedure of the
"base" call. :-(
"Olaf Pietsch" <olaf_pietsch@.t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ewq$B7OdDHA.2296@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "John Peterson" <j0hnp@.comcast.net> wrote
> > create view Test
> > as
> > select * from sysobjects option (robust plan)
> > go
> >
> > It will fail to create the VIEW (citing a syntax error near
> > "option"). It's almost like I can only have that OPTION clause
> > "outside" of the VIEW. But, I don't want to have to change a lot of
> > code to explicitly put the OPTION clause in place for those objects
> > that are calling the VIEW -- I'd like to be able to do that in *one*
> > place if at all possible.
> If you can use an UDF:
> CREATE FUNCTION test_function ()
> RETURNS @.table_var TABLE (n varchar(100), id int)
> AS
> BEGIN
> INSERT @.table_var SELECT [name], id from sysobjects option (robust plan)
> RETURN
> END
> GO
> CREATE VIEW test
> AS
> SELECT * FROM [dbo].[test_function]()
> GO
> --
> Olaf
>
>
>|||Hi John,
"John Peterson" <j0hnp@.comcast.net> wrote
news:OpQaFVPdDHA.2748@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> Thanks, Olaf -- that's exactly what I tried. Unfortunately, that
> doesn't appear to work either. The only way to get that OPTION
> clause seems to be in a stored procedure of the "base" call. :-(
I tested my suggestion and is running successful, I use SQL 2000 SP3.
>> If you can use an UDF:
>> CREATE FUNCTION test_function ()
>> RETURNS @.table_var TABLE (n varchar(100), id int)
>> AS
>> BEGIN
>> INSERT @.table_var SELECT [name], id from sysobjects option (robust
>> plan) RETURN
>> END
>> GO
>> CREATE VIEW test
>> AS
>> SELECT * FROM [dbo].[test_function]()
>> GO
Sorry, did you test the same version really?
The following raises an error:
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.test_fn ()
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN (
SELECT [name], id from sysobjects option (robust plan)
)
Server: Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Procedure test_fn, Line 8
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'option'.
--
Olaf|||Oh...you know what I did:
create function Test()
returns table
as
return(select * from sysobjects option (robust plan))
go
And *that* didn't work. I had hoped that I wouldn't have to define the table structure
and just be an inline function (IsInlineFunction as opposed to IsTableFunction). But I
guess that doesn't quite work.
If all else fails, I'll probably try your suggested technique. It really bugs me that the
VIEW needs the OPTION hint -- I'm hopeful to refactor it so that it's not required.
Thanks for your help!
"Olaf Pietsch" <olaf_pietsch@.t-online.de> wrote in message
news:u8C7ZFSdDHA.728@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> "John Peterson" <j0hnp@.comcast.net> wrote
> news:OpQaFVPdDHA.2748@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> > Thanks, Olaf -- that's exactly what I tried. Unfortunately, that
> > doesn't appear to work either. The only way to get that OPTION
> > clause seems to be in a stored procedure of the "base" call. :-(
> I tested my suggestion and is running successful, I use SQL 2000 SP3.
> >> If you can use an UDF:
> >>
> >> CREATE FUNCTION test_function ()
> >> RETURNS @.table_var TABLE (n varchar(100), id int)
> >> AS
> >> BEGIN
> >> INSERT @.table_var SELECT [name], id from sysobjects option (robust
> >> plan) RETURN
> >> END
> >> GO
> >>
> >> CREATE VIEW test
> >> AS
> >> SELECT * FROM [dbo].[test_function]()
> >> GO
> Sorry, did you test the same version really?
> The following raises an error:
> CREATE FUNCTION dbo.test_fn ()
> RETURNS TABLE
> AS
> RETURN (
> SELECT [name], id from sysobjects option (robust plan)
> )
> Server: Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Procedure test_fn, Line 8
> Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'option'.
> --
> Olaf
>

Can not send mail with xp_sendmail procedure

Hallo!
Environment:
Windows 2000 domain (2 x win2000 sp4 domain conrollers)
Exchange 5.5 running on winnt4.0 member server
SQL 2000 sp3 running on Windows 2000 member server.
I have SQL server running under domain administrator account (both services)
and Outlook 2000 on the same server profile set with the same account and
Exchange 5.5.
SQL agent is set to use that profile and also SQL mail (under support
services in SQL manager). When I test that profile it works OK. I can send
test mail to the operator and all my alerts can send mail fine.
Problem is, that my new application uses xp_sendmail procedure to send mail,
and it doesn't work. I get this error when running the procedure:
Server: Msg 18025, Level 16, State 1, Line 0
xp_sendmail: failed with mail error 0x80070005
I found an article Q293422 that descibes this problem but the solution did
not solve the problem. Besides, this article is about Exchange 2000 mailbox
and I'm using 5.5 mailbox.
I just managed to temporary fix this problem. I created new domain user in
AD and it's mailbox in Exchange 5.5. After seting SQL service, SQL agent
service, mail settings in Enterprise manager and new profile in Outlook to
use that new account, everything was working OK. xp_sandmail was working
too. But the next day same problem repaired. xp_sendmail reported same
errors again.
I suspect there are some security isues with SQL service account, but what?
Why is it working OK for one day and then stops the next?
Any ideas would be appreciated! Thanks.
DanSome links to KB articles and other resources helping with config issues, as
well as alternatives to xp_sendmail: http://www.aspfaq.com/2403
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Dan" <mcseman2002@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OT1exV42DHA.2336@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Hallo!
> Environment:
> Windows 2000 domain (2 x win2000 sp4 domain conrollers)
> Exchange 5.5 running on winnt4.0 member server
> SQL 2000 sp3 running on Windows 2000 member server.
> I have SQL server running under domain administrator account (both

---

services)

quote:

---

> and Outlook 2000 on the same server profile set with the same account and
> Exchange 5.5.
> SQL agent is set to use that profile and also SQL mail (under support
> services in SQL manager). When I test that profile it works OK. I can send
> test mail to the operator and all my alerts can send mail fine.
> Problem is, that my new application uses xp_sendmail procedure to send

---

mail,

quote:

---

> and it doesn't work. I get this error when running the procedure:
> Server: Msg 18025, Level 16, State 1, Line 0
> xp_sendmail: failed with mail error 0x80070005
> I found an article Q293422 that descibes this problem but the solution did
> not solve the problem. Besides, this article is about Exchange 2000

---

mailbox

quote:

---

> and I'm using 5.5 mailbox.
> I just managed to temporary fix this problem. I created new domain user in
> AD and it's mailbox in Exchange 5.5. After seting SQL service, SQL agent
> service, mail settings in Enterprise manager and new profile in Outlook to
> use that new account, everything was working OK. xp_sandmail was working
> too. But the next day same problem repaired. xp_sendmail reported same
> errors again.
> I suspect there are some security isues with SQL service account, but

---

what?

quote:

---

> Why is it working OK for one day and then stops the next?
> Any ideas would be appreciated! Thanks.
> Dan
>
>

---

can not load xpstar.dll

hi,
i have sql server sp3 running upon win 2000 adv server sp 4. the server is
configured for merge replication with another machine with same
configuration (sql server sp3 running upon win 2000 adv server sp 4). few
days back i recieved this error when i was trying to connect SQL server
remotely from one macine to the other.
Microsoft SQL-DMO(ODMC SQL State:42000) Error 0: cannot load the dll
xpstar.dll, or one of the DLLs it refferences. Reason: 126(the specified
module could not be found)
even if i could connect, i get the same error upon almost every activity on
the remote sql server. i found no reasonable solution to the problem on the
internet. finnally i uninsalled the sql server and then installed fresh sql
server and sp3. the problem was resolved. but afetr few days, i m facing
the same problem back again. i have repeated the same course of action.
i need to know any why this is happning so i could reach to the root of the
problem. installing back the sql server is not an optimal solution. need
help and fast.
thanx in advance.
Atif Chowhan
When you check you will find that xpstar.dll is actually there and loaded. The file missing is probably shfolder.dll. This folder resides in %systemRoot%\system32, copy it from any other server.
Posted using Wimdows.net NntpNews Component -
Post Made from http://www.SqlJunkies.com/newsgroups Our newsgroup engine supports Post Alerts, Ratings, and Searching.

can not load xpstar.dll

hi,
i have sql server sp3 running upon win 2000 adv server sp 4. the server is
configured for merge replication with another machine with same
configuration (sql server sp3 running upon win 2000 adv server sp 4). few
days back i recieved this error when i was trying to connect SQL server
remotely from one macine to the other.
Microsoft SQL-DMO(ODMC SQL State:42000) Error 0: cannot load the dll
xpstar.dll, or one of the DLLs it refferences. Reason: 126(the specified
module could not be found)
even if i could connect, i get the same error upon almost every activity on
the remote sql server. i found no reasonable solution to the problem on the
internet. finnally i uninsalled the sql server and then installed fresh sql
server and sp3. the problem was resolved. but afetr few days, i m facing
the same problem back again. i have repeated the same course of action.
i need to know any why this is happning so i could reach to the root of the
problem. installing back the sql server is not an optimal solution. need
help and fast.
thanx in advance.
Atif ChowhanWhen you check you will find that xpstar.dll is actually there and loaded. The file missing is probably shfolder.dll. This folder resides in %systemRoot%\system32, copy it from any other server.
--
Posted using Wimdows.net NntpNews Component -
Post Made from http://www.SqlJunkies.com/newsgroups Our newsgroup engine supports Post Alerts, Ratings, and Searching.

Can not install Reporting Services, Help!

Hi,
I'm running Windows XP and SQL Server Developer Edition (sp3) and I'm trying
to install the MS SQL Server Reporting Services that is in the MSDN of April
2004. I also have Visual studio.net installed.
So when I run the CD all goes well until you specify the database for the
reporting server and then I get the following error:
"This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the edition
of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose on that matches the
requirements."
MS Requirements are SQL 2000 Standard, SQL 2000 Enterprise, and SQL 2000
Developer edition.
What does this mean, any comments or feedback will be greately appreciated.
- SergioI would verify that you are running the developer addition. You can do that
by running this SELECT statement on your XP machine:
SELECT SERVERPROPERTY ('edition')
--
----
----
--
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:f000323c8d8a00f8f3a9e2a81b3d483d@.news.teranews.com...
> Hi,
> I'm running Windows XP and SQL Server Developer Edition (sp3) and I'm
trying
> to install the MS SQL Server Reporting Services that is in the MSDN of
April
> 2004. I also have Visual studio.net installed.
> So when I run the CD all goes well until you specify the database for the
> reporting server and then I get the following error:
> "This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the
edition
> of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose on that matches the
> requirements."
> MS Requirements are SQL 2000 Standard, SQL 2000 Enterprise, and SQL 2000
> Developer edition.
> What does this mean, any comments or feedback will be greately
appreciated.
> - Sergio
>|||Ha!
I wasn't for some stupid reason I was running the personal edition. Thanks
for your help, I would still be wasting time if I hadn't followed your
suggestion.
Thank you a heap.
"Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
news:%23SBoVWUMEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I would verify that you are running the developer addition. You can do
that
> by running this SELECT statement on your XP machine:
> SELECT SERVERPROPERTY ('edition')
> --
> ----
--
> ----
--
> --
> Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
> http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
> "SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:f000323c8d8a00f8f3a9e2a81b3d483d@.news.teranews.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running Windows XP and SQL Server Developer Edition (sp3) and I'm
> trying
> > to install the MS SQL Server Reporting Services that is in the MSDN of
> April
> > 2004. I also have Visual studio.net installed.
> >
> > So when I run the CD all goes well until you specify the database for
the
> > reporting server and then I get the following error:
> >
> > "This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the
> edition
> > of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose on that matches the
> > requirements."
> >
> > MS Requirements are SQL 2000 Standard, SQL 2000 Enterprise, and SQL 2000
> > Developer edition.
> >
> > What does this mean, any comments or feedback will be greately
> appreciated.
> >
> > - Sergio
> >
> >
>|||I am running SQL Server developer and got the same message. However, I
continued with the installation and it works fine. That is, it works
in VS.NET 2003. I can create new "business intelligence" projects.
"SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<ab8fe521601065edf8fa050f7602dbb6@.news.teranews.com>...
> Ha!
> I wasn't for some stupid reason I was running the personal edition. Thanks
> for your help, I would still be wasting time if I hadn't followed your
> suggestion.
> Thank you a heap.
>
> "Gregory A. Larsen" <greg.larsen@.netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:%23SBoVWUMEHA.3348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I would verify that you are running the developer addition. You can do
> that
> > by running this SELECT statement on your XP machine:
> >
> > SELECT SERVERPROPERTY ('edition')
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----
> --
> > ----
> --
> > --
> >
> > Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
> > http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
> > "SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:f000323c8d8a00f8f3a9e2a81b3d483d@.news.teranews.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm running Windows XP and SQL Server Developer Edition (sp3) and I'm
> trying
> > > to install the MS SQL Server Reporting Services that is in the MSDN of
> April
> > > 2004. I also have Visual studio.net installed.
> > >
> > > So when I run the CD all goes well until you specify the database for
> the
> > > reporting server and then I get the following error:
> > >
> > > "This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the
> edition
> > > of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose on that matches the
> > > requirements."
> > >
> > > MS Requirements are SQL 2000 Standard, SQL 2000 Enterprise, and SQL 2000
> > > Developer edition.
> > >
> > > What does this mean, any comments or feedback will be greately
> appreciated.
> > >
> > > - Sergio
> > >
> > >
> >
> >