configuration management and version history SQL 2005

I have a Database on SQL 2005.I want to trace what all changes were made in
this database on a particular date. A kind of report that will highlight all
changes made to the DB on that date. How do I acheive that ? Please advice.
NAT (NAT@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> I have a Database on SQL 2005.I want to trace what all changes were made
> in this database on a particular date. A kind of report that will
> highlight all changes made to the DB on that date. How do I acheive that
> ? Please advice.
What changes? Data? Metadata?
The default traces captures some of the metadata changes (I can't vouch
for that it captures it all). You can access this information by right-
clicking the database, select Reports and then Schema Changes History.
If the server has been restarted since that particular date, this is not
like to work out.
If you are looking for changes in data, a log reader is your sole
alternative. And only if you run with full recovery and still have
the transaction log around. Log readers are third-party tools and some
vendors are Lumigent, Log PI and ApexSQL.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
|||Are you looking for a change control tool? If so then Embarcedaro's Change
Manager is very good
Sincerely,
John K
Knowledgy Consulting
http://knowledgy.org
Atlanta's Business Intelligence and Data Warehouse Experts
"NAT" <NAT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60C27EC6-F62F-4328-87BC-FA6BBCCC25E2@.microsoft.com...
>I have a Database on SQL 2005.I want to trace what all changes were made in
> this database on a particular date. A kind of report that will highlight
> all
> changes made to the DB on that date. How do I acheive that ? Please
> advice.

Conditionally end a report

I am new to CR so this might be a really stupid question. CR version 10.

I want to end the report after X number of records based on a parameter field. Specifically I want to list customers in order of total sales but specify how many customers to print out. Like, Top 100 Customers by Sales.

I know I could print all records to the screen then choose to only print X number of pages but that's not possible if the report goes right to the printer.

Thank you.Type TOP into Crystal's online help (index) and see what you get.l

Conditional Execution based on Multi-Valued Parameter Selection

If a user selects all (266) parameter values from a mult-valued parameter list, I would like to display a table based on a version of a stored-proc that does not select records using parameter driven criteria.

The total selected count can be acquired by =Parameters!ParmName.Count syntax. Total available parameter values can be extracted by =CountDistinct(Fields!ColName.Value,"DatasetName").

Setting a filter on a table and inspecting the total selected count can limit the number of values executed for the query.

That is great, but I would also like to run an efficient query if all values were selected. Thought I could set a filter on a table and compare these two values, but I can't use an aggregate.

Any ideas?

Decided to create a one row dataset (query) containing a count of the number of values to select from. Used this value in a hidden parameter "PrimaryListCount" and used the new dataset to populate the default report parameter value. Then I determined if all values were selected using the following table filter:

=CInt(Parameters!PrimaryNames.Count) = =CInt(Parameters!PrimaryListCount.Value)

If you have a better solution, I'd like to know about it. If not, hope this can help someone else.

Concurrent MSDE SQL and SQL 2000/2005

We have two servers that need to be upgraded. One has an app that uses the
MSDE version of SQL. The second uses SQL 2000. Neither has very many users
.
Could we purchase a single new server, and run both versions of SQL on it
concurrently? Would it make a difference if the SQL 2000 is eventually
upgraded to SQL 2005, while the MSDE version stays at 2000 instead of going
to SQL Express?
Thanks!
EmilyYou could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
instances?|||Thank you for your response, Paul. My hesitation in using two instances is
simply that I am new to SQL, and new to these applications, and there isn't
anyone here who knows much about them. Having never had SQL training, I am
a
little reluctant to change any of the default settings. However, the
financial people don't want to buy two servers. The vendors are not very
helpful.
"Paul T." wrote:

>
> You could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
> a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
> the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
> for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
> ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
> SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
> instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
> instances?
>|||If you are reluctant to change default settings, and you have not had
much SQL training your best bet is to continue using the two servers
and upgrade either as needed. If you wanted them on the same server
you would have to change the default settings of at least one instance
as it would need an instance name. If you moved the msde databases
onto the SQL 2000 server, you would need to at least know how to attach
and detach the databases and ensure that all the logins still have the
proper access. If there is no business reason that these applications
are running on seperate servers then I would look into learning enough
about SQL Server to put the databases on the SQL Server 2000 box
together.|||You could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
instances?|||Thank you for your response, Paul. My hesitation in using two instances is
simply that I am new to SQL, and new to these applications, and there isn't
anyone here who knows much about them. Having never had SQL training, I am
a
little reluctant to change any of the default settings. However, the
financial people don't want to buy two servers. The vendors are not very
helpful.
"Paul T." wrote:

>
> You could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
> a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
> the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
> for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
> ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
> SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
> instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
> instances?
>|||If you are reluctant to change default settings, and you have not had
much SQL training your best bet is to continue using the two servers
and upgrade either as needed. If you wanted them on the same server
you would have to change the default settings of at least one instance
as it would need an instance name. If you moved the msde databases
onto the SQL 2000 server, you would need to at least know how to attach
and detach the databases and ensure that all the logins still have the
proper access. If there is no business reason that these applications
are running on seperate servers then I would look into learning enough
about SQL Server to put the databases on the SQL Server 2000 box
together.

Concurrent MSDE SQL and SQL 2000/2005

We have two servers that need to be upgraded. One has an app that uses the
MSDE version of SQL. The second uses SQL 2000. Neither has very many users.
Could we purchase a single new server, and run both versions of SQL on it
concurrently? Would it make a difference if the SQL 2000 is eventually
upgraded to SQL 2005, while the MSDE version stays at 2000 instead of going
to SQL Express?
Thanks!
EmilyYou could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
instances?|||Thank you for your response, Paul. My hesitation in using two instances is
simply that I am new to SQL, and new to these applications, and there isn't
anyone here who knows much about them. Having never had SQL training, I am a
little reluctant to change any of the default settings. However, the
financial people don't want to buy two servers. The vendors are not very
helpful.
"Paul T." wrote:
>
> You could run both versions on one server, but it would require having
> a named instance, which adds a little bit more hassle. One would be
> the default instance and you would connect to it as per normal but the
> for the named instance you would have to connect to it as
> ComputerName\InstanceName. My recommendation would be to just install
> SQL 2000/2005 on your new server and host all databases on the one
> instance. Is their any particular reason you want them on seperate
> instances?
>|||If you are reluctant to change default settings, and you have not had
much SQL training your best bet is to continue using the two servers
and upgrade either as needed. If you wanted them on the same server
you would have to change the default settings of at least one instance
as it would need an instance name. If you moved the msde databases
onto the SQL 2000 server, you would need to at least know how to attach
and detach the databases and ensure that all the logins still have the
proper access. If there is no business reason that these applications
are running on seperate servers then I would look into learning enough
about SQL Server to put the databases on the SQL Server 2000 box
together.