Print event in ReportViewer?

Hi All,

How can I use the Print event of ReportViewer control in my web application? I am trying to print a server report automatically so that the user does not have to click on the Print button in the tool bar of the report viewer.

I came across one article that talks about the Print event -

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms318531.aspx

But I could not find it in VS2005 version that I am using.

Please let me know if there is a method to print the report automatically other than exporting it to some file and printing it from there.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!!!

I am trying Using System.Drawing.Printing, but failed!

Anyone help me!

|||

You only get the Print event in the WinForms version of the ReportViewer control, not in the WebForms version. Perhaps you are in a web-app?

Take a look at the sample printer delivery extension that ships with the product: It will allow you to send a report to a printer without even first viewing it (although you could view it, too, if you wanted to...)

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms160778.aspx

sql

Print event in ReportViewer?

Hi All,

How can I use the Print event of ReportViewer control in my web application? I am trying to print a server report automatically so that the user does not have to click on the Print button in the tool bar of the report viewer.

I came across one article that talks about the Print event -

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms318531.aspx

But I could not find it in VS2005 version that I am using.

Please let me know if there is a method to print the report automatically other than exporting it to some file and printing it from there.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!!!

I am trying Using System.Drawing.Printing, but failed!

Anyone help me!

|||

You only get the Print event in the WinForms version of the ReportViewer control, not in the WebForms version. Perhaps you are in a web-app?

Take a look at the sample printer delivery extension that ships with the product: It will allow you to send a report to a printer without even first viewing it (although you could view it, too, if you wanted to...)

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms160778.aspx

print as landscape

Is there a way to get reports to print as landscape instead of potrait
automatically? I changed the Layout from properties to the correct width
and page height, the display looks fine but when I print, it tries to print
it on potrait setting. I've tried printing from both the report previewer
and deployed as an html document.
Thanks
-JoeHi,
I am also facing a similar problem. Is there a method where you make a
report in potrait style and print it in landscape.
thanks
"Joe Scalise" wrote:
> Is there a way to get reports to print as landscape instead of potrait
> automatically? I changed the Layout from properties to the correct width
> and page height, the display looks fine but when I print, it tries to print
> it on potrait setting. I've tried printing from both the report previewer
> and deployed as an html document.
> Thanks
> -Joe
>
>|||I have the same problem - it seems like export to {format} results in
portrait no matter what the report page size. I hope the answer to
this is a simple implementation - not "wait for SP2" or something like
that.sql

PrimaryKey and Index

All,
To my understanding, the primary key is automatically indexed.
But in Enterprise Mananger (Design table/ indexes keys). It shows:
(x) Create UNIQUE
O Constraint <-- this is select
O Index
and you can NOT change the selection.
So I am confused that if an index is created or not. Do I need to
create the (unique) index on the primary key column so I can search on
this column with best performance.
Thanks
John
Primary Keys are automatically indexed. you do not have to create the index
manually.
Note: This is NOT the case for Foreign Keys
Note2: By Default SQL Server will create Primary Keys as "Clustered"
indexes. You need to be careful as the Clustered index may be better placed
on another column or columns.
Cheers,
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||A Primary Key is a Constraint, which is an element of your logical data
model, rather than an Index, which is a feature of your table's physical
implementation. Behind the scenes the result is the same - the PK constraint
is implemented as a unique index and you don't need to create another index
explicitly.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?
|||In My mind, a unique constrain is mainly there for you alternate keys, where a primary key
constraint is there for your primary key.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Q. John Chen" <nonospam@.wowway.com> wrote in message
news:8488de58.0406170656.4e4dd32b@.posting.google.c om...
> Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
> How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?
|||A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
Cheers
GAJ
|||Thank for your response.
My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
reason.
Thanks again.
John.
"Jaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<#$zxjzIVEHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
> A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
> Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> GAJ
|||On 21 Jun 2004 09:35:50 -0700, Q. John Chen wrote:

>Thank for your response.
>My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
>a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
>reason.
>Thanks again.
>John.
Hi John,
If you define a UNIQUE constraint, SQL Server will indeed create an index
that is used for enforcing the constraint, but can also be used to
optimize queries.
The index created will be nonclustered by default, but you can override
this if you prefer a clustered index - check BOL for details.
Best, Hugo
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

PrimaryKey and Index

All,
To my understanding, the primary key is automatically indexed.
But in Enterprise Mananger (Design table/ indexes keys). It shows:
(x) Create UNIQUE
O Constraint <-- this is select
O Index
and you can NOT change the selection.
So I am confused that if an index is created or not. Do I need to
create the (unique) index on the primary key column so I can search on
this column with best performance.
Thanks
JohnPrimary Keys are automatically indexed. you do not have to create the index
manually.
Note: This is NOT the case for Foreign Keys
Note2: By Default SQL Server will create Primary Keys as "Clustered"
indexes. You need to be careful as the Clustered index may be better placed
on another column or columns.
Cheers,
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||A Primary Key is a Constraint, which is an element of your logical data
model, rather than an Index, which is a feature of your table's physical
implementation. Behind the scenes the result is the same - the PK constraint
is implemented as a unique index and you don't need to create another index
explicitly.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?|||In My mind, a unique constrain is mainly there for you alternate keys, where
a primary key
constraint is there for your primary key.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Q. John Chen" <nonospam@.wowway.com> wrote in message
news:8488de58.0406170656.4e4dd32b@.posting.google.com...
> Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
> How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?|||A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
Cheers
GAJ|||Thank for your response.
My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
reason.
Thanks again.
John.
"Jaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<#$zxjzIVEHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP11.p
hx.gbl>...
> A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
> Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> GAJ|||On 21 Jun 2004 09:35:50 -0700, Q. John Chen wrote:

>Thank for your response.
>My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
>a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
>reason.
>Thanks again.
>John.
Hi John,
If you define a UNIQUE constraint, SQL Server will indeed create an index
that is used for enforcing the constraint, but can also be used to
optimize queries.
The index created will be nonclustered by default, but you can override
this if you prefer a clustered index - check BOL for details.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

PrimaryKey and Index

All,
To my understanding, the primary key is automatically indexed.
But in Enterprise Mananger (Design table/ indexes keys). It shows:
(x) Create UNIQUE
O Constraint <-- this is select
O Index
and you can NOT change the selection.
So I am confused that if an index is created or not. Do I need to
create the (unique) index on the primary key column so I can search on
this column with best performance.
Thanks
JohnPrimary Keys are automatically indexed. you do not have to create the index
manually.
Note: This is NOT the case for Foreign Keys
Note2: By Default SQL Server will create Primary Keys as "Clustered"
indexes. You need to be careful as the Clustered index may be better placed
on another column or columns.
Cheers,
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||A Primary Key is a Constraint, which is an element of your logical data
model, rather than an Index, which is a feature of your table's physical
implementation. Behind the scenes the result is the same - the PK constraint
is implemented as a unique index and you don't need to create another index
explicitly.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?|||In My mind, a unique constrain is mainly there for you alternate keys, where a primary key
constraint is there for your primary key.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Q. John Chen" <nonospam@.wowway.com> wrote in message
news:8488de58.0406170656.4e4dd32b@.posting.google.com...
> Thanks for the clarification from Greg and David.
> How about the Unique Contraint? I think it is just like PK, isn't it?|||A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
Cheers
GAJ|||Thank for your response.
My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
reason.
Thanks again.
John.
"Jaxon" <GregoryAJackson@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<#$zxjzIVEHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
> A Unique Constraint is applied to force Non PKey Items Unique.
> Pkey is defined for referential integrity purposes, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> GAJ|||On 21 Jun 2004 09:35:50 -0700, Q. John Chen wrote:
>Thank for your response.
>My question is that whether an index will be automatically created for
>a Unique constraint. So I don't have create index for the performance
>reason.
>Thanks again.
>John.
Hi John,
If you define a UNIQUE constraint, SQL Server will indeed create an index
that is used for enforcing the constraint, but can also be used to
optimize queries.
The index created will be nonclustered by default, but you can override
this if you prefer a clustered index - check BOL for details.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

primary key vs unique key, and indexing

Hi,
the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
do i have to create an index too?
i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
fields to be unique
should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
or should i create a unique constraint ?
if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
constraint is being indexed anyway ?
ThanksA unique constraint WILL automaitically create a unique index on the
fields included in the definition.
Whether to use a unique constraint or a primary key requires
consideration of a few things. Can you give more details about what you
are trying to accomplish?
frederic.nourry@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks|||Wow, very loaded question. And it has my favorite answer: it depends.
A unique constraint (or just creating a primary key constraint) will not
automatically create an index. If you create it through the GUI, the options
to create indexes are often checked by default.
As far as what to use for the primary key - my personal preference is to use
an artificial key (an integer with the identity property enabled), use that
for table joins, then include the unique constraint on the 3-column natural
key.
Index only what will be involved in queries or joins. Don't create a 3
column index unless that is the way you would commonly query the table.
There are plenty of great sources out there on the subject of index
creation - do a little research. You'll get differing opinions (some will
disagree with what I'm saying here), and most of those differing opinions
have validity to them. You may need to experiment with a couple of different
techniques. It all depends on what you're database's main role is (insert,
update, delete or select only) and its size.
Others, please chime in.
Hope that helps a little.
<frederic.nourry@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152283825.853943.82490@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks
>|||frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
(nonclustered by default).
Example:
-- sql 2k
create table dbo.t1 (
c1 int not null,
constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
)
go
select [name]
from sysindexes
where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
go
drop table dbo.t1
go
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
Do those columns accept NULL value?
Is there a primary key defined already?
A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
AMB
"frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks
>|||I stand correct - yes, a unique constraint will force the creation of a
unique index to enforce it. Sorry bout that, thanks SQLPoet.
"SQLPoet" <sqlpoet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152285705.793579.309650@.s16g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>A unique constraint WILL automaitically create a unique index on the
> fields included in the definition.
> Whether to use a unique constraint or a primary key requires
> consideration of a few things. Can you give more details about what you
> are trying to accomplish?
>
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
>> do i have to create an index too?
>> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
>> fields to be unique
>> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
>> or should i create a unique constraint ?
>> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
>> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
>> Thanks
>|||More discussion about this question.
http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming&mid=17b7877f-6978-4038-bc16-0c426b6cf7eb&sloc=en-us&sloc=en-us
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,
> > the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> > do i have to create an index too?
> No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
> (nonclustered by default).
> Example:
> -- sql 2k
> create table dbo.t1 (
> c1 int not null,
> constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
> )
> go
> select [name]
> from sysindexes
> where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
> go
> drop table dbo.t1
> go
> > i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> > fields to be unique
> >
> > should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> >
> > or should i create a unique constraint ?
> Do those columns accept NULL value?
> Is there a primary key defined already?
> A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
>
> AMB
> "frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> > do i have to create an index too?
> >
> > i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> > fields to be unique
> >
> > should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> >
> > or should i create a unique constraint ?
> > if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> > constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >|||Yes, I stand corrected again :) Thank you. Brain went to Primary Key instead
originally. That and a lack of caffeine.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25284DF0-5FBC-47B7-865E-72F1D4AD128F@.microsoft.com...
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,
>> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
>> do i have to create an index too?
> No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
> (nonclustered by default).
> Example:
> -- sql 2k
> create table dbo.t1 (
> c1 int not null,
> constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
> )
> go
> select [name]
> from sysindexes
> where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
> go
> drop table dbo.t1
> go
>> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
>> fields to be unique
>> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
>> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> Do those columns accept NULL value?
> Is there a primary key defined already?
> A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
>
> AMB
> "frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
>> do i have to create an index too?
>> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
>> fields to be unique
>> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
>> or should i create a unique constraint ?
>> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
>> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
>> Thanks
>>|||Hi thanks for the answers
Colums do not accept null
and a primary key is set on the first column which is an identity.
also i'm using the interface to create the key and constraints.
i guess i can simply set my primary key and create a unique constraint
on the 3 columns that i need to be unique.
this will also create 2 indexes , 1 for the primary key and the other
for the unique constraint.
thanks for all the answer , it did help to clarify things

primary key vs unique key, and indexing

Hi,
the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
do i have to create an index too?
i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
fields to be unique
should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
or should i create a unique constraint ?
if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
constraint is being indexed anyway ?
ThanksA unique constraint WILL automaitically create a unique index on the
fields included in the definition.
Whether to use a unique constraint or a primary key requires
consideration of a few things. Can you give more details about what you
are trying to accomplish?
frederic.nourry@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks|||Wow, very loaded question. And it has my favorite answer: it depends.
A unique constraint (or just creating a primary key constraint) will not
automatically create an index. If you create it through the GUI, the options
to create indexes are often checked by default.
As far as what to use for the primary key - my personal preference is to use
an artificial key (an integer with the identity property enabled), use that
for table joins, then include the unique constraint on the 3-column natural
key.
Index only what will be involved in queries or joins. Don't create a 3
column index unless that is the way you would commonly query the table.
There are plenty of great sources out there on the subject of index
creation - do a little research. You'll get differing opinions (some will
disagree with what I'm saying here), and most of those differing opinions
have validity to them. You may need to experiment with a couple of different
techniques. It all depends on what you're database's main role is (insert,
update, delete or select only) and its size.
Others, please chime in.
Hope that helps a little.
<frederic.nourry@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152283825.853943.82490@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks
>|||frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,

> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
(nonclustered by default).
Example:
-- sql 2k
create table dbo.t1 (
c1 int not null,
constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
)
go
select [name]
from sysindexes
where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
go
drop table dbo.t1
go

> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
Do those columns accept NULL value?
Is there a primary key defined already?
A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
AMB
"frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Hi,
> the main question is : are unique constraint indexed automatically or
> do i have to create an index too?
> i'm wondering how can i get the best performance from a table that as 3
> fields to be unique
> should i put a primary key on the 3 fields , and sql will index it
> or should i create a unique constraint ?
> if so do i need to create an index on the 3 fields too or the unique
> constraint is being indexed anyway ?
> Thanks
>|||I stand correct - yes, a unique constraint will force the creation of a
unique index to enforce it. Sorry bout that, thanks SQLPoet.
"SQLPoet" <sqlpoet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152285705.793579.309650@.s16g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>A unique constraint WILL automaitically create a unique index on the
> fields included in the definition.
> Whether to use a unique constraint or a primary key requires
> consideration of a few things. Can you give more details about what you
> are trying to accomplish?
>
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com wrote:
>|||More discussion about this question.
http://support.microsoft.com/newsgr...n-us&sloc=en-us
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,
>
> No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
> (nonclustered by default).
> Example:
> -- sql 2k
> create table dbo.t1 (
> c1 int not null,
> constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
> )
> go
> select [name]
> from sysindexes
> where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
> go
> drop table dbo.t1
> go
>
> Do those columns accept NULL value?
> Is there a primary key defined already?
> A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
>
> AMB
> "frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:
>|||Yes, I stand corrected again Thank you. Brain went to Primary Key instead
originally. That and a lack of caffeine.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25284DF0-5FBC-47B7-865E-72F1D4AD128F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> frederic.nourry@.gmail.com,
>
> No, SQL Server implement a unique constraint by creating a unique index
> (nonclustered by default).
> Example:
> -- sql 2k
> create table dbo.t1 (
> c1 int not null,
> constraint uq_t1_c1 unique (c1)
> )
> go
> select [name]
> from sysindexes
> where [id] = object_id('dbo.t1')
> go
> drop table dbo.t1
> go
>
> Do those columns accept NULL value?
> Is there a primary key defined already?
> A primary key can not be NULL by definition and a table can have just one.
>
> AMB
> "frederic.nourry@.gmail.com" wrote:
>|||Hi thanks for the answers
Colums do not accept null
and a primary key is set on the first column which is an identity.
also i'm using the interface to create the key and constraints.
i guess i can simply set my primary key and create a unique constraint
on the 3 columns that i need to be unique.
this will also create 2 indexes , 1 for the primary key and the other
for the unique constraint.
thanks for all the answer , it did help to clarify things

'PRIMARY' filegroup is full (yet another)

Hello,
I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
package.
When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
the size?
Thanks
Les
Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
have autoshrink turned on for the database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> package.
> When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
> I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
> soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
> and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> the size?
> Thanks
> Les
|||With an 'is it plugged in question' (because all your factors were within
SS)--is there enough room on the disk?
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Hello,
I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of the
file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figure
and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always has
been.
I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extremely
frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it be
a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). The
owner of the database is sa.
There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
Any help appreciated.
Les
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I seemed to have got this to work by creating a second file to the PRIMARY
filegroup for the msdb database. However I would still be interested in any
theories as to why I couldn't get the single file to work.
I should mention we are having software RAID problems on this server - I
don't think they are a factor because I am getting no related error messages.
Les
"Les Russell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello,
> I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of the
> file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figure
> and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always has
> been.
> I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extremely
> frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it be
> a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). The
> owner of the database is sa.
> There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
> We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
> Any help appreciated.
> Les
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

'PRIMARY' filegroup is full (yet another)

Hello,
I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
package.
When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
the size'
Thanks
LesTry changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error mess
age. Also see if you
have autoshrink turned on for the database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> package.
> When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off
.
> I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager.
As
> soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) valu
e
> and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> the size'
> Thanks
> Les|||With an 'is it plugged in question' (because all your factors were within
SS)--is there enough room on the disk?
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error me
ssage. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
>|||Hello,
I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of the
file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figure
and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always has
been.
I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extremely
frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it be
a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). The
owner of the database is sa.
There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
Any help appreciated.
Les
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error me
ssage. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
>|||I seemed to have got this to work by creating a second file to the PRIMARY
filegroup for the msdb database. However I would still be interested in any
theories as to why I couldn't get the single file to work.
I should mention we are having software RAID problems on this server - I
don't think they are a factor because I am getting no related error messages
.
Les
"Les Russell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello,
> I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of th
e
> file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figu
re
> and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always ha
s
> been.
> I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extreme
ly
> frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it
be
> a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). T
he
> owner of the database is sa.
> There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
> We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
> Any help appreciated.
> Les
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>

'PRIMARY' filegroup is full (yet another)

Hello,
I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
package.
When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
the size'
Thanks
LesTry changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
have autoshrink turned on for the database.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> package.
> When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
> I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
> soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
> and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> the size'
> Thanks
> Les|||With an 'is it plugged in question' (because all your factors were within
SS)--is there enough room on the disk?
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> > package.
> >
> > When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
> > I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> >
> > I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> > Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
> > soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
> > and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> > the size'
> >
> > Thanks
> > Les
>|||Hello,
I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of the
file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figure
and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always has
been.
I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extremely
frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it be
a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). The
owner of the database is sa.
There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
Any help appreciated.
Les
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
> have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> > package.
> >
> > When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
> > I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> >
> > I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> > Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
> > soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
> > and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> > the size'
> >
> > Thanks
> > Les
>|||I seemed to have got this to work by creating a second file to the PRIMARY
filegroup for the msdb database. However I would still be interested in any
theories as to why I couldn't get the single file to work.
I should mention we are having software RAID problems on this server - I
don't think they are a factor because I am getting no related error messages.
Les
"Les Russell" wrote:
> Hello,
> I used the ALTER DATABASE command and it increased the PHYSICAL size of the
> file on disk. However it had no effect on the "Space Allocated (MS)" figure
> and the database still refuses to expand. Autoshrink os OFF and always has
> been.
> I tried increasing the MAXSIZE - this also had no effect. This is extremely
> frustrating - the server is basically ignoring my instructions. Could it be
> a security issue? (although I am getting no warning or error messages). The
> owner of the database is sa.
> There is 50GB of space left on the disk - no problem there.
> We are now stuck in a situation where we cannot modify our DTS packages.
> Any help appreciated.
> Les
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > Try changing the size using ALTER DATABASE and see if you get any error message. Also see if you
> > have autoshrink turned on for the database.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
> >
> >
> > "Les Russell" <LesRussell@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:4D994768-4737-4CA9-9817-BFE42C083317@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am getting this error on the database msdb when trying to update a DTS
> > > package.
> > >
> > > When I look at msdb, it is set to automatically grow and autoshrink is off.
> > > I changed the auto-grow on the MDF file to 10% but that didn't help.
> > >
> > > I then tried changing the space allocated - on the Data Files tab in the
> > > Properties menu after right-clicking the database in Enterprise Manager. As
> > > soon as I hit "OK", the size changes back to the original (too small) value
> > > and nothing has changed. What else could be wrong, and why can't I change
> > > the size'
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Les
> >
> >

Primary file is full

We set the database to : automatically grow file, unstricted file growth, grow by 10%.
As I understand it will automatically grow, why we recieved error message like primary file full.Not enough disk to grow another ten percent?

-PatP|||Thanks, But we do have enough space.|||How big is the datafile now? And is it sitting on a volume that is formatted with FAT32 or NTFS?|||We set the database to : automatically grow file, unstricted file growth, grow by 10%.
As I understand it will automatically grow, why we recieved error message like primary file full.

How about, like, the actual error message...|||Thanks,

What I want to do now is to set an alert that when the database file is 90 % full, not log file, then send an email.

I didn't see there is an alert like this in the sql event alert, do I need to define it, can I do it in EM?

Also wondering when the system extended the database, when it's full or when it has some percent left?

Thanks|||Search on the term "autogrow" in Books Online, and you should find this in an article titled "Physical Database Files and Filegroups":

SQL Server 2000 files can grow automatically from their originally specified size. When you define a file, you can specify a growth increment. Each time the file fills, it increases its size by the growth increment. If there are multiple files in a filegroup, they do not autogrow until all the files are full. Growth then occurs using a round-robin algorithm.

Primary Entity Switching Behavior in Report Builder

Is there any way to change the behavior where a new primary entity (the
entity at the top of the entities box) is automatically selected when you add
data that traverses a role with a 1-to-many relationship?
Let me illustrate using a generic example. Say the Customer table is the
main primary entity for my Report Builder. Customers can have 0 or multiple
orders, so the Role between the Customer-Orders table (the Cardinality) is
set to OptionalMany. When a user selects some Customer data then selects some
Order data, the Order entity appears at the top of the list automatically.
The report looks ok at first, but customers without orders will not show up.
What happened is that SQL code behind the report is like:
SELECT FROM Orders INNER JOIN Customer
when what I really want is:
SELECT FROM Customer LEFT OUTER JOIN Orders
I think the Report builder is trying to be helpful by doing this, but is
there anyway to get it to stop this automatic behavior or reverse it after it
has happened? Deleting all of the chosen data on your report seems to be the
only way to get the entities list back to normal, but that is obviously not
helpful.bump
Is that a no?
"Max Reiner" wrote:
> Is there any way to change the behavior where a new primary entity (the
> entity at the top of the entities box) is automatically selected when you add
> data that traverses a role with a 1-to-many relationship?
> Let me illustrate using a generic example. Say the Customer table is the
> main primary entity for my Report Builder. Customers can have 0 or multiple
> orders, so the Role between the Customer-Orders table (the Cardinality) is
> set to OptionalMany. When a user selects some Customer data then selects some
> Order data, the Order entity appears at the top of the list automatically.
> The report looks ok at first, but customers without orders will not show up.
> What happened is that SQL code behind the report is like:
> SELECT FROM Orders INNER JOIN Customer
> when what I really want is:
> SELECT FROM Customer LEFT OUTER JOIN Orders
> I think the Report builder is trying to be helpful by doing this, but is
> there anyway to get it to stop this automatic behavior or reverse it after it
> has happened? Deleting all of the chosen data on your report seems to be the
> only way to get the entities list back to normal, but that is obviously not
> helpful.