Is it possible to create a group policy that sets the "remote connections"
property that exists in the SQL Server Surface Area Configuration applet?
How? :-)
Thanks,
JoeNo. This is also something you do NOT want to do. If you could create
this, it would mean that every single SQL Server instance, including the
various SQL Server Express instances installed with thousands of different
applications would automatically be able to receive inbound connections from
remote clients. This was a very specific security issue that was addressed
in this version. All you have to do is to look up the Slammer worm and
you'll understand why you only want those instances which need to service
client connections able to do so.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Joe" <jwdaigle@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:Ow0cVf8KGHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to create a group policy that sets the "remote connections"
> property that exists in the SQL Server Surface Area Configuration applet?
> How? :-)
> Thanks,
> Joe
>|||And if I wanted to ensure that it was never set to allow remote connections?
"Michael Hotek" <mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:uGopFv$KGHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> No. This is also something you do NOT want to do. If you could create
> this, it would mean that every single SQL Server instance, including the
> various SQL Server Express instances installed with thousands of different
> applications would automatically be able to receive inbound connections
> from remote clients. This was a very specific security issue that was
> addressed in this version. All you have to do is to look up the Slammer
> worm and you'll understand why you only want those instances which need to
> service client connections able to do so.
> --
> Mike
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
> views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
> or entity either by inference or direct reference.
>
> "Joe" <jwdaigle@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Ow0cVf8KGHA.3396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Hi Joe,
Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup Support. And thank Michael's great
help!
As Michael stated, it does not mean that never set to allow remote
connection. You can allow remote connection for those instance you want to.
By default, only Enterprise, Standard and Workgroup editions allow remote
client connection.
If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to let me know. We
are here to be of assistance!
Sincerely yours,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||So then it is not possible to ensure that "allow remote client connections"
is disabled via group policy? Thats too bad, because it requires me to
manually check systems for compliance.
Ok, thank you both for your help.
Joe
"Wei Lu" <t-weilu@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Ap4y3JHLGHA.3052@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hi Joe,
> Welcome to use MSDN Managed Newsgroup Support. And thank Michael's great
> help!
> As Michael stated, it does not mean that never set to allow remote
> connection. You can allow remote connection for those instance you want
> to.
> By default, only Enterprise, Standard and Workgroup editions allow remote
> client connection.
> If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to let me know. We
> are here to be of assistance!
> Sincerely yours,
> Wei Lu
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ========================================
=============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
>|||You are welcome, Joe.
Sincerely yours,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label sets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sets. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Concatenating result sets
Hello,
I have a stored procedure that calls itself recursively. At each step a new
result set is generated so when the query completes I get a bunch of
individual result sets, each containing one line. The problem is that the
query takes quit a bit of time(about half a minute) and I get a "Resource is
low, some results are dropped" message when testing in the Query analyzer.
Is there a way of concatenating these result sets in a way the UNION
statement does? I'm thinking of trying a temporary table.
Cheerstemp table would achieve what you're trying to do, but are you sure you
need to be doing it? when you're getting into recursive stored
procedures and loads of little result sets you're using SQL for
something it wasn't really intended for (in my opinion, and yes, other
people have their own differing opinion).
are you able to say a bit more about the query, it may be possible to
do it without recursion.
Cheers
Will|||temporary table is the only way to do it. and the result from the stored pro
c
cannot be recursively stored into a temporary table because INSERT EXEC
cannot be nested.
hope this helps|||What I'm trying to do is read a tree in a way that I could build a certain
hierarchical data structure in my C# code.
The table structure is simple: a node ID, a node description and the ID of
the parent node. The C# object is a class that contains an ID, a description
and an array of children(of the same type).
I thought of recursively read the tree and again recursively build the C#
object structure.
"Will" <william_pegg@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144081590.593096.155650@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> temp table would achieve what you're trying to do, but are you sure you
> need to be doing it? when you're getting into recursive stored
> procedures and loads of little result sets you're using SQL for
> something it wasn't really intended for (in my opinion, and yes, other
> people have their own differing opinion).
> are you able to say a bit more about the query, it may be possible to
> do it without recursion.
> Cheers
> Will
>|||it's better to read all data from table and build tree in C# in single
iteration over records in dataset.
alternatively, implement recursion in c# passing dataset as parameter and
looking for relevant records.
peter|||Hi, Gabriel
If you use (or you are planning to use) SQL Server 2005, you should
take a look at recursive CTE-s, that solve this problem in a very
elegant way:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/i...TSQLinYukon/#S7
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms186243.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...TSQLEnhance.asp
Razvan|||Yeah I think that may be a bit wiser. I got a bit excited with the recursion
from a programmer's point of view but I guess resources are also to be
thaught about besides algorithms...
Thanks
"Rogas69" <rogas69@.no_spamers.o2.ie> wrote in message
news:e%23cgoA0VGHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> it's better to read all data from table and build tree in C# in single
> iteration over records in dataset.
> alternatively, implement recursion in c# passing dataset as parameter and
> looking for relevant records.
> peter
>|||Look at Razvan's post below. This logic can be done with SQL without using
recursive stored procedures. It is not only more elegant, as Razvan puts
it, but much more efficient.
"Gabriel Lacatus" <cyberdude@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eKmUaF0VGHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yeah I think that may be a bit wiser. I got a bit excited with the
recursion
> from a programmer's point of view but I guess resources are also to be
> thaught about besides algorithms...
> Thanks
> "Rogas69" <rogas69@.no_spamers.o2.ie> wrote in message
> news:e%23cgoA0VGHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
and
>|||And if not on SQL 2005 yet, maybe this example can be of help:
http://milambda.blogspot.com/2005/0...or-monkeys.html
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/
I have a stored procedure that calls itself recursively. At each step a new
result set is generated so when the query completes I get a bunch of
individual result sets, each containing one line. The problem is that the
query takes quit a bit of time(about half a minute) and I get a "Resource is
low, some results are dropped" message when testing in the Query analyzer.
Is there a way of concatenating these result sets in a way the UNION
statement does? I'm thinking of trying a temporary table.
Cheerstemp table would achieve what you're trying to do, but are you sure you
need to be doing it? when you're getting into recursive stored
procedures and loads of little result sets you're using SQL for
something it wasn't really intended for (in my opinion, and yes, other
people have their own differing opinion).
are you able to say a bit more about the query, it may be possible to
do it without recursion.
Cheers
Will|||temporary table is the only way to do it. and the result from the stored pro
c
cannot be recursively stored into a temporary table because INSERT EXEC
cannot be nested.
hope this helps|||What I'm trying to do is read a tree in a way that I could build a certain
hierarchical data structure in my C# code.
The table structure is simple: a node ID, a node description and the ID of
the parent node. The C# object is a class that contains an ID, a description
and an array of children(of the same type).
I thought of recursively read the tree and again recursively build the C#
object structure.
"Will" <william_pegg@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144081590.593096.155650@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> temp table would achieve what you're trying to do, but are you sure you
> need to be doing it? when you're getting into recursive stored
> procedures and loads of little result sets you're using SQL for
> something it wasn't really intended for (in my opinion, and yes, other
> people have their own differing opinion).
> are you able to say a bit more about the query, it may be possible to
> do it without recursion.
> Cheers
> Will
>|||it's better to read all data from table and build tree in C# in single
iteration over records in dataset.
alternatively, implement recursion in c# passing dataset as parameter and
looking for relevant records.
peter|||Hi, Gabriel
If you use (or you are planning to use) SQL Server 2005, you should
take a look at recursive CTE-s, that solve this problem in a very
elegant way:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/i...TSQLinYukon/#S7
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms186243.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...TSQLEnhance.asp
Razvan|||Yeah I think that may be a bit wiser. I got a bit excited with the recursion
from a programmer's point of view but I guess resources are also to be
thaught about besides algorithms...
Thanks
"Rogas69" <rogas69@.no_spamers.o2.ie> wrote in message
news:e%23cgoA0VGHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> it's better to read all data from table and build tree in C# in single
> iteration over records in dataset.
> alternatively, implement recursion in c# passing dataset as parameter and
> looking for relevant records.
> peter
>|||Look at Razvan's post below. This logic can be done with SQL without using
recursive stored procedures. It is not only more elegant, as Razvan puts
it, but much more efficient.
"Gabriel Lacatus" <cyberdude@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eKmUaF0VGHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yeah I think that may be a bit wiser. I got a bit excited with the
recursion
> from a programmer's point of view but I guess resources are also to be
> thaught about besides algorithms...
> Thanks
> "Rogas69" <rogas69@.no_spamers.o2.ie> wrote in message
> news:e%23cgoA0VGHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
and
>|||And if not on SQL 2005 yet, maybe this example can be of help:
http://milambda.blogspot.com/2005/0...or-monkeys.html
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)