conditionally execute a subreport

I have a report that contains several subreports, one of which is meant to be
displayed only when the subject of the report has a particular job title. The
data source for this subreport is a stored procedure, and in that procedure I
examine the job title and execute the code only for the specified job title,
but SQL Server goes ahead and opens all of the tables anyway, increasing
overhead on a report that already takes several hours to run.
A better solution would be to conditionally execute the subreport. Is there
a way to do that?
thanks, bethMy understanding of Reporting Services is that it is not meant to work that
way. This is not a client program; it is a server platform. There is
therefore no event-driven programming paradigm like you get in Access. It is
by design.
If you want to do the kind of thing you are talking about, you will need to
change your design. You can design two separate reports, or you can write
your own client program to conditionally load reports.
There is a sample demo of how to integrate reports in your application on
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporting. It shows how to use a browser control
in a Windows application.
sorry if this is not the answer you wanted.
Charles Kangai, MCT, MCDBA
"beth" wrote:
> I have a report that contains several subreports, one of which is meant to be
> displayed only when the subject of the report has a particular job title. The
> data source for this subreport is a stored procedure, and in that procedure I
> examine the job title and execute the code only for the specified job title,
> but SQL Server goes ahead and opens all of the tables anyway, increasing
> overhead on a report that already takes several hours to run.
> A better solution would be to conditionally execute the subreport. Is there
> a way to do that?
> thanks, beth|||Charles,
I will persue the alternatives you suggested - thank you.
I don't understand your point about client versus server platforms.
If I can conditionally toggle visibility of an object, why could I not toggle
say, an enable/disable property, of a subreport? If this is by design though,
I guess that's that.
I could try placing another stored procedure up front that examines the job
title, that will then conditionally execute the stored procedure that opens
all the
tables and collects the data; using this method, I could at least stop SQL
Server from opening tables it is not going to use. Not sure that will work
though.
thank you for your reply Charles...beth
"Charles Kangai" wrote:
> My understanding of Reporting Services is that it is not meant to work that
> way. This is not a client program; it is a server platform. There is
> therefore no event-driven programming paradigm like you get in Access. It is
> by design.
> If you want to do the kind of thing you are talking about, you will need to
> change your design. You can design two separate reports, or you can write
> your own client program to conditionally load reports.
> There is a sample demo of how to integrate reports in your application on
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/reporting. It shows how to use a browser control
> in a Windows application.
> sorry if this is not the answer you wanted.
> Charles Kangai, MCT, MCDBA

conditional widths

I have a report with columns which the user may optionally turn on. when
these columns are not displayed (hidden=true), the report fits nicely in
legal sized paper, and when the columns are displayed, it is typically
because the report will be exported to Excel.
here's my quandary: if I assign those optional columns a particular width,
the report exceeds the paper size (even though the columns are hidden),
causing extra pages to print (blank). the solution is to make those columns
0 width (or as close as Reporting Services will allow)... however, when
exporting to Excel, the columns have to be manually expanded. grr...
the answer would be conditional width sizes i.e. if a report parameter
specifies display of the columns then use one width, otherwise make the width
0... but the width property doesn't seem to accept an expression.
has anyone out there faced this same problem? any ideas of how I can
address it?
thx - ekkisI am having a similar problem, I want conditional widths so that I can use
the same report for different years. I have information broken down by weeks
and want the parameter to be the year, based on that parameter I need the
month name above the week names to change in size. Haven't figures it out
yet...

conditional display

To simplify, I have a report with sections A,B, and C.
Section A is always displayed.
Section B is only displayed when the subject is Male.
Section C is only displayed when the subject is Female.
I want section B or C to directly follow section A.
I have been using the hidden property to do this, but it is hard to maintain the report as I have placed these two sections on top of each other on the Layout tab.
Is there a way to make either section B or C directly follow section A without having them overlap in the Layout tab?

What is in the sections? Three different reports? I haven't had much use for sections myself.

If these were three different reports, you could have them flow nicely in the layout tab without overlap.

|||The sections contain data pertinent only to Males or Females. I have considered making separate reports, but the gender sections only make up about 10% of the report. Because of this I would rather keep it as one report. GregSQL mentioned not having much use for 'sections'. I am new to RS so forgive me if I have miused a term. I was using 'section' just as a loose description of my report. Also, my report is 'odd' in the sense that I am displaying data from just one record. Most of the reports I see in the tutorials are based on multiple rows. I am trying to display information on just one person. That information differs depending on gender. Its a 10 page report!

Hope this helps...|||

I believe I understand what you are trying to do.

You always want to display table A first.
If table B has data, table B will show directly under table A.
If table B does not have data and table C has data, table C will show directly under table A.
If table B has data and C has data, table B will show directly under table A and table C will show directly under table B.

I was looking around and I don't see another way to do this. I was thinking that you could dynamically change the location properties of the tables (B & C), but you can't dynamically change these.

Jarret

|||Jarret,

You are correct. That is exactly what I am saying. Except I am using Rectangles and Text boxes instead of tables. No need for tables as I am only displaying a single record at a time. Crystal Reports used a 'supress drill-down' feature that would conditionally display a section of the report. Surely RS has something comparable?
|||

I haven't tried this, but you might be able to put your rectangles/textboxes into a table (each as their own row), then set the visibility of the row to display which section (B or C) next.

Hope this helps.

Jarret

|||Forgive my ignorance but it appears to be working now.
If you put your textboxes in rectangles and butt the rectangles together, they will follow right after one another even if there is an 'invisible' rectangle in the middle.
I think my earlier attempts involved rectangles with space between them so the space was preserved? Maybe? My earlier attempt is at the top of the report. My latest victory is on page 5. So I think I will leave my earlier blemish alone...

conditional display

To simplify, I have a report with sections A,B, and C.
Section A is always displayed.
Section B is only displayed when the subject is Male.
Section C is only displayed when the subject is Female.
I want section B or C to directly follow section A.
I have been using the hidden property to do this, but it is hard to maintain the report as I have placed these two sections on top of each other on the Layout tab.
Is there a way to make either section B or C directly follow section A without having them overlap in the Layout tab?

What is in the sections? Three different reports? I haven't had much use for sections myself.

If these were three different reports, you could have them flow nicely in the layout tab without overlap.

|||The sections contain data pertinent only to Males or Females. I have considered making separate reports, but the gender sections only make up about 10% of the report. Because of this I would rather keep it as one report. GregSQL mentioned not having much use for 'sections'. I am new to RS so forgive me if I have miused a term. I was using 'section' just as a loose description of my report. Also, my report is 'odd' in the sense that I am displaying data from just one record. Most of the reports I see in the tutorials are based on multiple rows. I am trying to display information on just one person. That information differs depending on gender. Its a 10 page report!

Hope this helps...|||

I believe I understand what you are trying to do.

You always want to display table A first.
If table B has data, table B will show directly under table A.
If table B does not have data and table C has data, table C will show directly under table A.
If table B has data and C has data, table B will show directly under table A and table C will show directly under table B.

I was looking around and I don't see another way to do this. I was thinking that you could dynamically change the location properties of the tables (B & C), but you can't dynamically change these.

Jarret

|||Jarret,

You are correct. That is exactly what I am saying. Except I am using Rectangles and Text boxes instead of tables. No need for tables as I am only displaying a single record at a time. Crystal Reports used a 'supress drill-down' feature that would conditionally display a section of the report. Surely RS has something comparable?
|||

I haven't tried this, but you might be able to put your rectangles/textboxes into a table (each as their own row), then set the visibility of the row to display which section (B or C) next.

Hope this helps.

Jarret

|||Forgive my ignorance but it appears to be working now.
If you put your textboxes in rectangles and butt the rectangles together, they will follow right after one another even if there is an 'invisible' rectangle in the middle.
I think my earlier attempts involved rectangles with space between them so the space was preserved? Maybe? My earlier attempt is at the top of the report. My latest victory is on page 5. So I think I will leave my earlier blemish alone...