Preventing Deadlock: web

Showing posts with label web. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Print Multi table report with a range of parameters.

We have a work order print that is called from a web page using a URL. The
print consists of 4 tables. All of the recordsets use the same parameters
but come from different data sets. I have a request to make it print
multiple work orders at a time.
When I use a select for multiple work orders it prints it all in one set of
tables but I want a seperate set of tables for each work order. Is there a
way to group the tables together?
Any other ideas?You need to use a list control, and if your reports are in RS 2000, you need
to do some hand editing of the xml.
First create your list, then add the table which displays the actual data +
any textboxes for headings and such.
Then you mark your list, and set the Grouping property to the Work Order ID.
If you're working with RS 2005, right click on the list in the report,
choose Properties. Click on the "Edit Details Group" Button. Select "Page
Break at end". (Or start, if you want.)
If you're working with RS 2000, you need to hand edit your RDL like this:
Open the code version of the report
Find your list
In the Grouping section, add <PageBreakAtEnd>true</PageBreakAtEnd>
Your code should look something like this:
<List Name="List1">
<Style>
<FontFamily>Times New Roman</FontFamily>
<FontSize>18pt</FontSize>
<Color>Maroon</Color>
<FontWeight>900</FontWeight>
</Style>
<Top>0.875in</Top>
<Grouping Name="ListGrouping">
<GroupExpressions>
<GroupExpression>=Fields(Parameters!PageGroupingParameter1.Value).Value</GroupExpression>
<GroupExpression>=Fields(Parameters!PageGroupingParameter2.Value).Value</GroupExpression>
</GroupExpressions>
<PageBreakAtEnd>true</PageBreakAtEnd>
</Grouping>
Save the code, and test the report. Did it work?
Kaisa M. Lindahl Lervik
"msc" <matt@.dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:6C0D2B4C-DCED-4559-A849-18B260FA7C03@.microsoft.com...
> We have a work order print that is called from a web page using a URL.
> The
> print consists of 4 tables. All of the recordsets use the same parameters
> but come from different data sets. I have a request to make it print
> multiple work orders at a time.
> When I use a select for multiple work orders it prints it all in one set
> of
> tables but I want a seperate set of tables for each work order. Is there
> a
> way to group the tables together?
> Any other ideas?
>sql

Print Issues with Reporting Services

I developed and deployed a report using VS.net. Reporting Services gives you the option on the web page to print the report or export to another format. When choosing to print, I am unable to get the report to print in landscape mode on standard letter paper. What is the relationship between the margin properties (which seem to have no impact) on the report? the body of the report? and the printer?
The report size doesnt seem to matter (10 x 7.5 inches) tried changing margins here also
The body size doesnt seem to matter (9.75 x 7 inches) and here

Does the issue lie with
a) the printer properties
b) Reporting services
c) IE
Im stumped!! Sad

Hopefully, you are using the Sep. CTP or later, since there was a known issue earlier with landscape printing. After the report server was upgraded, I still had to manually delete the old RSClientPrint Class file on my PC, which was cached under the "Downloaded Program Fles" folder (RTM version is: 2005,90,1399,0).

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,

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?

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

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Print directly frm PDF format

hi,
is there any ways to print the reports directly frm the web application by
rendering the reports to pdf format?
regards
AngelaThe user will have to export the report to PDF first and then print. There
is no way for Report Manager to automate this.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36443488-ED64-4175-87E0-B01DDAD07DF6@.microsoft.com...
> hi,
> is there any ways to print the reports directly frm the web application by
> rendering the reports to pdf format?
> regards
> Angela|||hi,
in that case, there is no other way whereby i can call to print the report
directly from my application? because i have tried rendering my report to
html format and the print result is different from reporting services print.
because the page number is different.And i cant use the method
"&rs:Command=Get&rc:GetImage=8.00.1038.00RSClientPrint.html" because it will
promt the user the option to select printer whereby my user will print multi
reports at a click. so this will result the active x to prompt multi print
dialog.
regards
Angela
"Daniel Reib [MSFT]" wrote:
> The user will have to export the report to PDF first and then print. There
> is no way for Report Manager to automate this.
> --
> -Daniel
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36443488-ED64-4175-87E0-B01DDAD07DF6@.microsoft.com...
> > hi,
> > is there any ways to print the reports directly frm the web application by
> > rendering the reports to pdf format?
> >
> > regards
> > Angela
>
>|||That is correct. You would need to solve this in your application. Your
app could display EMF rather then HTML and then just print the EMF and the
user would be viewing what they would print, however you would loose
interactivity.
The problem with using HTML is it does not print nicely. This is why we
created the ActiveX control to print reports. The activeX control uses EMF
to print reports. Because this is a different format (different from HTML)
the pages don't always line up. RS does not expose any mechanism for
printing the current HTML page.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E2C9F73-67EF-4D54-B294-61ADBA4A2FA1@.microsoft.com...
> hi,
> in that case, there is no other way whereby i can call to print the report
> directly from my application? because i have tried rendering my report to
> html format and the print result is different from reporting services
> print.
> because the page number is different.And i cant use the method
> "&rs:Command=Get&rc:GetImage=8.00.1038.00RSClientPrint.html" because it
> will
> promt the user the option to select printer whereby my user will print
> multi
> reports at a click. so this will result the active x to prompt multi print
> dialog.
> regards
> Angela
>
> "Daniel Reib [MSFT]" wrote:
>> The user will have to export the report to PDF first and then print.
>> There
>> is no way for Report Manager to automate this.
>> --
>> -Daniel
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:36443488-ED64-4175-87E0-B01DDAD07DF6@.microsoft.com...
>> > hi,
>> > is there any ways to print the reports directly frm the web application
>> > by
>> > rendering the reports to pdf format?
>> >
>> > regards
>> > Angela
>>|||hi,
so in that case can i say i jux format my reports to EMF rather den html to
get the issue solve?
or is there an example or smaple for this calling format?
regrads
Angela
"Daniel Reib [MSFT]" wrote:
> That is correct. You would need to solve this in your application. Your
> app could display EMF rather then HTML and then just print the EMF and the
> user would be viewing what they would print, however you would loose
> interactivity.
> The problem with using HTML is it does not print nicely. This is why we
> created the ActiveX control to print reports. The activeX control uses EMF
> to print reports. Because this is a different format (different from HTML)
> the pages don't always line up. RS does not expose any mechanism for
> printing the current HTML page.
> --
> -Daniel
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9E2C9F73-67EF-4D54-B294-61ADBA4A2FA1@.microsoft.com...
> > hi,
> > in that case, there is no other way whereby i can call to print the report
> > directly from my application? because i have tried rendering my report to
> > html format and the print result is different from reporting services
> > print.
> > because the page number is different.And i cant use the method
> > "&rs:Command=Get&rc:GetImage=8.00.1038.00RSClientPrint.html" because it
> > will
> > promt the user the option to select printer whereby my user will print
> > multi
> > reports at a click. so this will result the active x to prompt multi print
> > dialog.
> >
> > regards
> > Angela
> >
> >
> > "Daniel Reib [MSFT]" wrote:
> >
> >> The user will have to export the report to PDF first and then print.
> >> There
> >> is no way for Report Manager to automate this.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Daniel
> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Angela" <Angela@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:36443488-ED64-4175-87E0-B01DDAD07DF6@.microsoft.com...
> >> > hi,
> >> > is there any ways to print the reports directly frm the web application
> >> > by
> >> > rendering the reports to pdf format?
> >> >
> >> > regards
> >> > Angela
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Print button on toolbar

I have Visual Studio 2005 Standard where I am building a web app. In this
web app I have a Report Viewer and the print button on the toolbar is set to
true, however when I run the app it is not there.
Is this a bug?Not if you are using it in Local Mode. Print is not supported in this mode.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Brad" <Brad@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1855A531-0C20-4625-AE88-9BA151104A03@.microsoft.com...
>I have Visual Studio 2005 Standard where I am building a web app. In this
> web app I have a Report Viewer and the print button on the toolbar is set
> to
> true, however when I run the app it is not there.
> Is this a bug?
>

Print Button

I have a web application with a stand alone report. When I put the ReportViewer in the webform I can see every reports in the project. The problem is that I can't see the print report button...

If I indicate that the report is a "Server Report" instead a local report the Print Report appear, but a need a "Local Report" not a "Server Report" How can i solve that.

Thank you.The ASP.NET version of the ReportViewer control does not support client print (which is accomplished with an ActiveX control) in local mode. We are considering adding this in a future release.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Primary Key Question

I have been developing a .NET Web app with an SQL Server 2005 Express database. Since I've been testing insert and delete code with a large data source, the Primary Key column which is also an autoincrement integer column is now at very large numbers (starting at over 40,000 now). I've tried doing a shrink on the database, but other then reducing the database size, it has done nothing to reduce the Primary Key numbers. Is there a command way to reduce the starting number back to 1 or do I need to completely reconstruct the database from scratch?

TIA

hi,

in order to "reset" the identity column value, you can "truncate" the table, that will implicitely reset the aut generated identity to your initial value via the
TRUNCATE TABLE schema.object;
statement... you will need high permissions on the object itself, and the table must not be referenced by a foreign key, ...
you can read further about requirements and permissions at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177570.aspx...

or you can execute a
DBCC CHECKIDENT ('schema.object', RESEED);
command... start reading http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms176057.aspx for further info and requirements..

regards

|||

Thanks - I'll give it a try.

Carl

|||

No dice. Neither of those options does it. That I want is, for example, a way of changing the lowest Primary/Identity Key value from 40,000 to 1. There are no records at lower values than 40,000. I'd also like to move all the Primary/Identity Key values down as well.

I suspect I need to effectively copy all the non-Primary/Identity Key data into a newly created database. If I do that, I think it is a characteristic of the INSERT statement that the Primary/Identity Key values will start at the seed values and autoincrement from there as rows are inserted and the incoming Primary/Identity Keys are ignored. I can then delete the original database and rename the new one to the original name.

Sound right?

Carl

|||

hi,

ok. you want to "re-assign" an autogenerated value starting from "1" to existing rows...

you actually do not have to "drop" the database...

just perform a "SELECT ... INTO" another table that will be created on the fly for you, as a temporary storage... then drop all rows from the "real" table and reset the identity value and repopulate the original table from the temp storage...

I mean something like

SET NOCOUNT ON;

USE tempdb;

CREATE TABLE dbo.myData(

Id int NOT NULL IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,

Data varchar(10) DEFAULT 'test data'

);

PRINT 'this will add some data';

DECLARE @.i int;

SET @.i = 1;

INSERT INTO dbo.myData VALUES ( DEFAULT );

WHILE @.i < 20 BEGIN

INSERT INTO dbo.myData SELECT Data FROM dbo.myData;

SET @.i = @.i + 1;

END;

SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData;

PRINT 'Deleting rows 1 to 200000';

DELETE FROM dbo.myData WHERE Id < 200000;

SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData;

PRINT 'now we do have an initial unused ''identity range''';

PRINT 'Move rows to a temp table';

SELECT * INTO dbo.tempTable FROM dbo.myData;

PRINT 'truncating the original myData table';

PRINT 'this will actually reseed the identity value as well';

TRUNCATE TABLE dbo.myData;

SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData;

PRINT 'move data again to the original table, but this time omitting the Id col';

INSERT INTO dbo.myData (Data) SELECT Data FROM dbo.tempTable ORDER BY Id;

SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData;

PRINT 'deleting temp table';

DROP TABLE dbo.tempTable;

PRINT 'final clean up';

DROP TABLE dbo.myData;

--<--

this will add some data

Count Max Min

-- -- --

524288 524288 1

Deleting rows 1 to 200000

Count Max Min

-- -- --

324289 524288 200000

now we do have an initial unused 'identity range'

Move rows to a temp table

truncating the original myData table

this will actually reseed the identity value as well

Count Max Min

-- -- --

0 NULL NULL

move data again to the original table, but this time omitting the Id col

Count Max Min

-- -- --

324289 324289 1

deleting temp table

final clean up

but this is usually not an efficient task you should do in production systems as, after all, key values are not interesting to human beings when autogenerated... you usually choose such a primary key for performance reasons or when you can not find an actual natural key in your data modelling desing phase (very bad ), so the actual value is not that big deal at all,, you just need it non repetetive and you get it as expected...

regards

|||

Thank you, Sir.

Yes, it did work and in the process I've learned more about SQL Express and T-SQ, important for a relative newbieL. Not only the original question I asked, but a seperate isuue I wasn't aware I was messing up until I kept getting an error message from the SELECT phrase in the second INSERT statement. I was insisting on putting parens around the column name list and SELECT didn't like that. When I ceased and desited, everything went smoothly. I initially tried this on the smaller of the two existing tables and each time it bombed out, it actually added to the PRIMARY IDENTITY Key. Since I expect more blanks from delete and insert statements as I develop the C# access code, that's not important now and I can fix it later. Reseeding the second table (the big one) went through without a hitch once I knew the right syntax. I expect that I'll need to write a script or something to do this and similar cleanup as I develop this app since I have more big tables to add with similar situations. Hopefully, I won't need to mess with it anymore when the app coding job's done, but at least I know how to do it now.

I'll take your advice on the autogenerated key into account and redesign accordingly. One of the two current tables I can change; the other not based on expected content.

Thanks for the help. I think I'm off and running again

Carl

|||

hi Carl,

Speedo wrote:
....
I'll take your advice on the autogenerated key into account and redesign accordingly. One of the two current tables I can change; the other not based on expected content.

wait before redesigning... I did not say that autogenearated keys are bad ..

they are just another (available) candidate key in our entity definition.. it should not be the only one, but such a candidate key can be good primary key, as it's very compact (and this is very usefull in relation where the referencing table must map to the referenced table) and this is a "nice to have" feature in indexes implementation...

very often database architechts implement a surrogate key in the design phase.. sometime these surrogate keys become primary keys and sometime not...

a nice article about nautural vs surrogate keys is available at http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=25862&redir=1&rl=1 , even if related to GUID columns..

regards

Primary Key Question

TIA

hi,

or you can execute a
DBCC CHECKIDENT ('schema.object', RESEED);
command... start reading http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms176057.aspx for further info and requirements..

regards

|||

Thanks - I'll give it a try.

Carl

|||

Sound right?

Carl

|||

hi,

ok. you want to "re-assign" an autogenerated value starting from "1" to existing rows...

you actually do not have to "drop" the database...

I mean something like

SET NOCOUNT ON; USE tempdb; GO CREATE TABLE dbo.myData( Id int NOT NULL IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY, Data varchar(10) DEFAULT 'test data' ); GO PRINT 'this will add some data'; DECLARE @.i int; SET @.i = 1; INSERT INTO dbo.myData VALUES ( DEFAULT ); WHILE @.i < 20 BEGIN INSERT INTO dbo.myData SELECT Data FROM dbo.myData; SET @.i = @.i + 1; END; GO SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData; GO PRINT 'Deleting rows 1 to 200000'; DELETE FROM dbo.myData WHERE Id < 200000; GO SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData; PRINT 'now we do have an initial unused ''identity range'''; GO PRINT 'Move rows to a temp table'; SELECT * INTO dbo.tempTable FROM dbo.myData; PRINT 'truncating the original myData table'; PRINT 'this will actually reseed the identity value as well'; TRUNCATE TABLE dbo.myData; SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData; GO PRINT 'move data again to the original table, but this time omitting the Id col'; INSERT INTO dbo.myData (Data) SELECT Data FROM dbo.tempTable ORDER BY Id; SELECT COUNT(*) AS [Count], MAX(Id) AS [Max], MIN(Id) AS [Min] FROM dbo.myData; GO PRINT 'deleting temp table'; DROP TABLE dbo.tempTable; GO PRINT 'final clean up'; DROP TABLE dbo.myData; --<-- this will add some data Count Max Min -- -- -- 524288 524288 1 Deleting rows 1 to 200000 Count Max Min -- -- -- 324289 524288 200000 now we do have an initial unused 'identity range' Move rows to a temp table truncating the original myData table this will actually reseed the identity value as well Count Max Min -- -- -- 0 NULL NULL move data again to the original table, but this time omitting the Id col Count Max Min -- -- -- 324289 324289 1 deleting temp table final clean up

regards

|||

Thank you, Sir.

I'll take your advice on the autogenerated key into account and redesign accordingly. One of the two current tables I can change; the other not based on expected content.

Thanks for the help. I think I'm off and running again

Carl

|||

hi Carl,

Speedo wrote:
....
I'll take your advice on the autogenerated key into account and redesign accordingly. One of the two current tables I can change; the other not based on expected content.

wait before redesigning... I did not say that autogenearated keys are bad ..

very often database architechts implement a surrogate key in the design phase.. sometime these surrogate keys become primary keys and sometime not...

a nice article about nautural vs surrogate keys is available at http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=25862&redir=1&rl=1 , even if related to GUID columns..

regards

sql

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Primary Key and Table Design Question

What would be a reasonable primary key to use in the following scenario?
I need to provide new functionality to an existing Web site. This new
functionality will be questionnaires (containing from 3 to 35 questions
each). Visitors to the site will open a questionnaire, answer the
questions, then click a "Submit" button. When the page is submitted to the
Web server, responses will need to be saved to the database (SQL 2K). Users
will not be logged in. For the sake of this question, please assume we have
dealt elsewhere with the issue of individual users submitting the same
survey multiple times (and other such issues not directly related to the
table design required to support this new functionality). Administrative
pages will enable the site's administrators to (1) define new Surveys, (2)
create new questions for each survey, and (3) retrieve and review responses
to existing surveys.
Three obvious entities are apparent to me: "Surveys", "Survey Questions" and
"Survey Response Sets"
"Surveys" would have a corresponding table that describes each survey
(title, subject, start_date, end_date, etc).
"Survey Questions" would have a corresponding table that holds things like
question_text, presentation_sequence, etc.
"Survey Response Sets" would have a corresponding table that holds responses
to each question.
I see one-to-many relationship from Surveys to SurveyQuestions, and from
SurveyQuestions to SurveyRespons Sets.
Given this scenario, what would you use as the primary key for each of these
tables? In a former life I would have used an IDENTITY property for each
table - but I've painfuly realized the downsides of going that route. So,
now that I'm trying to get away from IDENTITY, I'm wondering what would make
sense for my scenario. There isn't any standardized or well-known/industry
standard for Survey IDs, nor Question IDs, nor Survey Response Set IDs. Nor
is there any legacy system I'm converting from that already has the PK for
me to use.
Thanks!What form do the responses take? Multiple choice? Free form text? Or
something else? As you aren't recording names it would seem a bit strange to
allow entirely free format responses (there's probably little you can do to
analyze such data in the database anyway) but you haven't mentioned any
other scheme. As you aren't identifying the individual users I assume you
are only interested in the total number of times each reply is given, hence
the "response_tally" column in the following first-guess at a logical
design:
CREATE TABLE surveys (survey_no INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, survey_title
VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE, survey_subject VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, start_date
DATETIME NOT NULL, end_date DATETIME NOT NULL, CHECK (start_date<=end_date))
CREATE TABLE survey_questions (survey_no INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES surveys
(survey_no), sequence INTEGER NOT NULL CHECK (sequence>0), question_text
VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (survey_no, sequence))
CREATE TABLE survey_responses (survey_no INTEGER NOT NULL, sequence INTEGER
NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY (survey_no, sequence) REFERENCES survey_questions
(survey_no, sequence), response_text VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL /* constraints ?
*/, response_tally INTEGER NOT NULL /* number of times this answer was given
*/, PRIMARY KEY (survey_no, sequence, response_text))
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thank you so much David for your response. I understand that I didn't give a
whole lot about the project's overall objectives... That's a judgement call
I made based on my wanting, most particularly, to learn alternative ways to
implement a primary key that is as something other than an IDENTITY property
(in cases where I don't want to use a natural key). I didn't want a natural
key here because the question_text column, which would be a candidate, not
only will be a varchar, but it may be quite long in some cases.
So, your response shows me something I'd be comfortable using - as integers
are used in the primary key. Now, continuing with your DDL, from where would
I get the actual integer values to use for [survey_no]? I have seen some of
you experts recommend a "numbers table" Would that be appropriate in this
scenario?
FWIW, these "surveys" are really not very static. It's not like we can say
that they all will take a specific format, have a pre-determined number of
questions, each of which is of any certain data type. For a sample of the
sort of thing we're implementing, you can look at this one:
http://www.jaguarwoman.com/order.html What we want to do is present a form
to the site's visitor, control to the best extent we can the number of times
a given user/visitor can submit the form, and then store the results for
later reporting. Some such forms will be simple info request forms like at
the above URL, others will be actual surveys or questionnaires with Likert
scale-type responses, upon which we'll be performing statistical analyses.
And yes - we are most certainly NOT treating these as anything near
scientific (unless that particular Web site does force login with a valid
ID/password...). Given that these surveys/forms/questionnaires are
potentially so different per customer Web site, I didn't think it would be
useful to post DDL for each possible one - HOWEVER each implementation would
likely involve some variation of the three tables described in the OP, and
for which you provided a "best guess" DDL given that you can't read my mind
: )
Thanks!
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:8NSdnSiIaJDU9QPfRVn-pA@.giganews.com...
> What form do the responses take? Multiple choice? Free form text? Or
> something else? As you aren't recording names it would seem a bit strange
> to allow entirely free format responses (there's probably little you can
> do to analyze such data in the database anyway) but you haven't mentioned
> any other scheme. As you aren't identifying the individual users I assume
> you are only interested in the total number of times each reply is given,
> hence the "response_tally" column in the following first-guess at a
> logical design:
> CREATE TABLE surveys (survey_no INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, survey_title
> VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE, survey_subject VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
> start_date DATETIME NOT NULL, end_date DATETIME NOT NULL, CHECK
> (start_date<=end_date))
> CREATE TABLE survey_questions (survey_no INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES
> surveys (survey_no), sequence INTEGER NOT NULL CHECK (sequence>0),
> question_text VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (survey_no, sequence))
> CREATE TABLE survey_responses (survey_no INTEGER NOT NULL, sequence
> INTEGER NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY (survey_no, sequence) REFERENCES
> survey_questions (survey_no, sequence), response_text VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
> /* constraints ? */, response_tally INTEGER NOT NULL /* number of times
> this answer was given */, PRIMARY KEY (survey_no, sequence,
> response_text))
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>|||I've worked with a design that uses two procedures: GetNextSurrogateKey and
GetNextBlockSurrogateKey. The first reserves the next key value and returns
it in an output parameter. The second reserves a specified number of key
values and returns the first key value in an output parameter. The next key
value for each table is stored in a table with one record per Surrogate Key
table. GetNextSurrogateKey increments the next key value field. The proble
m
with this approach is two-fold: (1) it increases the probability of deadlock
s
and (2) it reduces concurrency. Calls to GetNextSurrogateKey must occur in
the same order in every transaction--in other words, you have to get the nex
t
key for TableA before getting the next key for TableB in each transaction
that occurs against the database. Even if you use the WITH ROWLOCK hint, th
e
optimizer may escalate to a PAGE LOCK, which effectively blocks inserts into
tables whose SurrogateKey record resides on that page. This can lead to
deadlocks which are really hard to debug, or at a minimum waiting for record
s
locked by another process. The implementation I saw padded the records so
that they were stored one per page in a logically flawed attempt to get
around this.
I prefer to use IDENTITY columns to avoid the above pitfalls. It requires
extra code on the client to obtain the identity value(s), and it's painful
when you're inserting records into related tables en mass, but in my opinion
the benefits outweigh the subsequent maintenance and debugging nightmares
that are sure to ensue.
If you're dead set against using IDENTITY columns, you could write an
extended stored procedure or COM object to implement the above
GetNextSurrogateKey pattern. The xp would execute outside the current
connection, which would prevent the concurrency and deadlock issues describe
d
above. A COM object would scale better, because it would minimize the
overhead associated with initiating a new connection for each call, because
it could maintain a pool of open connections..
"Jeffrey Todd" wrote:

> Thank you so much David for your response. I understand that I didn't give
a
> whole lot about the project's overall objectives... That's a judgement cal
l
> I made based on my wanting, most particularly, to learn alternative ways t
o
> implement a primary key that is as something other than an IDENTITY proper
ty
> (in cases where I don't want to use a natural key). I didn't want a natura
l
> key here because the question_text column, which would be a candidate, not
> only will be a varchar, but it may be quite long in some cases.
> So, your response shows me something I'd be comfortable using - as integer
s
> are used in the primary key. Now, continuing with your DDL, from where wou
ld
> I get the actual integer values to use for [survey_no]? I have seen some o
f
> you experts recommend a "numbers table" Would that be appropriate in this
> scenario?
>
> FWIW, these "surveys" are really not very static. It's not like we can say
> that they all will take a specific format, have a pre-determined number of
> questions, each of which is of any certain data type. For a sample of the
> sort of thing we're implementing, you can look at this one:
> http://www.jaguarwoman.com/order.html What we want to do is present a form
> to the site's visitor, control to the best extent we can the number of tim
es
> a given user/visitor can submit the form, and then store the results for
> later reporting. Some such forms will be simple info request forms like at
> the above URL, others will be actual surveys or questionnaires with Likert
> scale-type responses, upon which we'll be performing statistical analyses.
> And yes - we are most certainly NOT treating these as anything near
> scientific (unless that particular Web site does force login with a valid
> ID/password...). Given that these surveys/forms/questionnaires are
> potentially so different per customer Web site, I didn't think it would be
> useful to post DDL for each possible one - HOWEVER each implementation wou
ld
> likely involve some variation of the three tables described in the OP, and
> for which you provided a "best guess" DDL given that you can't read my min
d
> : )
> Thanks!
>
>
> "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
> news:8NSdnSiIaJDU9QPfRVn-pA@.giganews.com...
>
>|||Thank you Brian for your thoughtful response. It is very helpful to have
that insight before I go off and paint myself into another corner that has
bad problems like the IDENTITY implementation would have.
<<but in my opinion the benefits outweigh the subsequent maintenance and
debugging nightmares that are sure to ensue>>
From the research I have done in my efforts to get away from IDENTITY and do
things "properly", I've discovered that a lot of work will have to be done
regardless of which approach is chosen (IDENTITY vs anything else). There
are substantial problems to be mitigated with intelligent decision-making
with every approach I've seen - even with the highly touted "natural keys"
(cascading updates notwithstanding).
So, I guess for my scenario, if you were the one having to implement it,
you'd go with IDENTITY. Maybe I should reconsider, and go with IDENTITY too.
The thing I hate most about IDENTITY is that everything falls apart when
migrating data from one DB to another, something I want to be able to do
without having to think about changing primary key values.
Anyone else? Thoughts, rants, opinions, and perspective or suggestions on my
particular scenario are greatly appreciated.
-JT
"Brian Selzer" <BrianSelzer@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48354E54-A332-40B1-A9C8-B5AA78A3843F@.microsoft.com...
> I've worked with a design that uses two procedures: GetNextSurrogateKey
> and
> GetNextBlockSurrogateKey. The first reserves the next key value and
> returns
> it in an output parameter. The second reserves a specified number of key
> values and returns the first key value in an output parameter. The next
> key
> value for each table is stored in a table with one record per Surrogate
> Key
> table. GetNextSurrogateKey increments the next key value field. The
> problem
> with this approach is two-fold: (1) it increases the probability of
> deadlocks
> and (2) it reduces concurrency. Calls to GetNextSurrogateKey must occur
> in
> the same order in every transaction--in other words, you have to get the
> next
> key for TableA before getting the next key for TableB in each transaction
> that occurs against the database. Even if you use the WITH ROWLOCK hint,
> the
> optimizer may escalate to a PAGE LOCK, which effectively blocks inserts
> into
> tables whose SurrogateKey record resides on that page. This can lead to
> deadlocks which are really hard to debug, or at a minimum waiting for
> records
> locked by another process. The implementation I saw padded the records so
> that they were stored one per page in a logically flawed attempt to get
> around this.
> I prefer to use IDENTITY columns to avoid the above pitfalls. It requires
> extra code on the client to obtain the identity value(s), and it's painful
> when you're inserting records into related tables en mass, but in my
> opinion
> the benefits outweigh the subsequent maintenance and debugging nightmares
> that are sure to ensue.
> If you're dead set against using IDENTITY columns, you could write an
> extended stored procedure or COM object to implement the above
> GetNextSurrogateKey pattern. The xp would execute outside the current
> connection, which would prevent the concurrency and deadlock issues
> described
> above. A COM object would scale better, because it would minimize the
> overhead associated with initiating a new connection for each call,
> because
> it could maintain a pool of open connections..
> "Jeffrey Todd" wrote:
>

Friday, March 9, 2012

Primary File Group Full?

I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
because they have binary object in them).
After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the following
error:
Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is
full.
What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined in my
tables? is my web hoster out of space?
Thanks,
GChances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you were
trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time it
takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that initiated
the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put you
back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free space in
the db before attempting any operation such as that. Manually grow the
file(s) and you should be all set.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
> because they have binary object in them).
> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the following
> error:
> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup
> is full.
> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined in
> my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
> Thanks,
> G
>|||What I don't understand is ...
The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables - no
user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine and,
apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just fine. I'm
using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster database. If my
tables have plenty of space to work well and they all fit on my computer,
why is there not enough space on the target computer?
When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how much
space that table will be allocated?
G
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you were
> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time it
> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that initiated
> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put you
> back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free space in
> the db before attempting any operation such as that. Manually grow the
> file(s) and you should be all set.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
>> because they have binary object in them).
>> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the following
>> error:
>> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
>> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup
>> is full.
>> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined in
>> my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> Thanks,
>> G
>|||Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on for
the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery model
etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you try
to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is dependant
mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can play
a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it will
cause page splits when you insert.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What I don't understand is ...
> The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables - no
> user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine
> and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
> fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
> database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all fit
> on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
> When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how much
> space that table will be allocated?
> G
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you were
>> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time it
>> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that initiated
>> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put
>> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that. Manually
>> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
>> because they have binary object in them).
>> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> following error:
>> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
>> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> filegroup is full.
>> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined
>> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> Thanks,
>> G
>>
>|||Hi Andrew
I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even though
there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to Autogrow.
So space is not the issue.
You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do this.
Cheers
Coburndavis
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on for
> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery model
> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you try
> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is dependant
> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can play
> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it will
> cause page splits when you insert.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > What I don't understand is ...
> >
> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables - no
> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine
> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all fit
> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
> >
> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how much
> > space that table will be allocated?
> > G
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you were
> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time it
> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that initiated
> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put
> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that. Manually
> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
> >> because they have binary object in them).
> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
> >> following error:
> >>
> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
> >> filegroup is full.
> >>
> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined
> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
> >> Thanks,
> >> G
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do this.
ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE = <desired size>)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew
> I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even though
> there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to Autogrow.
> So space is not the issue.
> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do this.
> Cheers
> Coburndavis
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on for
>> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
>> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery model
>> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you try
>> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is dependant
>> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can play
>> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it will
>> cause page splits when you insert.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > What I don't understand is ...
>> >
>> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables - no
>> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine
>> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
>> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
>> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all fit
>> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
>> >
>> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how much
>> > space that table will be allocated?
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you were
>> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time it
>> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that initiated
>> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put
>> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that. Manually
>> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
>> >> because they have binary object in them).
>> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> >> following error:
>> >>
>> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
>> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> >> filegroup is full.
>> >>
>> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined
>> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>|||If space is NOT an issue and you are truely set to AUTOGROW, then I suspect
you current database size is, hmmm, about, what? 2 GB?
If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
that edition. The only known solution is to upgrade to a Server-Class
edition or split your database into multiple databases...hey, just like you
would do with MS Access. Sound familiar? That's why MSDE stands for MS
Desktop Edition, it is a personal replacement or alternative to MS Access,
but not for Server-class, production, Client/Server or n-Tier solutions,
only Standard and Enterprise Editions are, and now, the new Workgroup
Edition?although, WE has its own restrictions.
Now, the Web Host sounds suspicious. I don't believe anyone would attempt
to run MSDE as a hosted edition. Are you on a dedicated server or are you
sharing? Do you know if the hosted database is set to AUTOGROW or not? Do
you know how much free space is on the drives for the hosted server? Do you
know if the ISP has quotas turned on for you data file folders?usually, you
would get a different error message if this were the case, but I would check
anyway?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:ObeUpDUYFHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
this.
ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE =<desired size>)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew
> I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even
though
> there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to
Autogrow.
> So space is not the issue.
> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
this.
> Cheers
> Coburndavis
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on
for
>> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
>> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery model
>> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you
try
>> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is
dependant
>> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can
play
>> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it
will
>> cause page splits when you insert.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > What I don't understand is ...
>> >
>> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables -
no
>> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine
>> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
>> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
>> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all
fit
>> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
>> >
>> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how
much
>> > space that table will be allocated?
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you
were
>> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time
it
>> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that
initiated
>> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put
>> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that.
Manually
>> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big
rows
>> >> because they have binary object in them).
>> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> >> following error:
>> >>
>> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space
for
>> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> >> filegroup is full.
>> >>
>> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are
defined
>> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>|||For what it's worth, using the FAT file system caps file sizes to a few GB
(3 or 4GB, I forget
the exact size). Worth checking out?
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u7w8CaGaFHA.3488@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If space is NOT an issue and you are truely set to AUTOGROW, then I
suspect
> you current database size is, hmmm, about, what? 2 GB?
> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
> that edition. The only known solution is to upgrade to a Server-Class
> edition or split your database into multiple databases...hey, just like
you
> would do with MS Access. Sound familiar? That's why MSDE stands for MS
> Desktop Edition, it is a personal replacement or alternative to MS Access,
> but not for Server-class, production, Client/Server or n-Tier solutions,
> only Standard and Enterprise Editions are, and now, the new Workgroup
> Edition-although, WE has its own restrictions.
> Now, the Web Host sounds suspicious. I don't believe anyone would attempt
> to run MSDE as a hosted edition. Are you on a dedicated server or are you
> sharing? Do you know if the hosted database is set to AUTOGROW or not?
Do
> you know how much free space is on the drives for the hosted server? Do
you
> know if the ISP has quotas turned on for you data file folders-usually,
you
> would get a different error message if this were the case, but I would
check
> anyway?
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> message news:ObeUpDUYFHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
> ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE => <desired size>)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even
> though
> > there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to
> Autogrow.
> > So space is not the issue.
> >
> > You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Coburndavis
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located
on
> for
> >> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
> >> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery
model
> >> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you
> try
> >> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is
> dependant
> >> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can
> play
> >> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it
> will
> >> cause page splits when you insert.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> > What I don't understand is ...
> >> >
> >> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system
tables -
> no
> >> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just
fine
> >> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group
just
> >> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
> >> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they
all
> fit
> >> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
> >> >
> >> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how
> much
> >> > space that table will be allocated?
> >> > G
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you
> were
> >> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the
time
> it
> >> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that
> initiated
> >> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and
put
> >> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of
free
> >> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that.
> Manually
> >> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big
> rows
> >> >> because they have binary object in them).
> >> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
> >> >> following error:
> >> >>
> >> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space
> for
> >> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
> >> >> filegroup is full.
> >> >>
> >> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are
> defined
> >> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> G
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>|||> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
> that edition.
If my memory serves me, you get some other error message of you reach max data size on MSDE. Not
sure, though...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:u7w8CaGaFHA.3488@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If space is NOT an issue and you are truely set to AUTOGROW, then I suspect
> you current database size is, hmmm, about, what? 2 GB?
> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
> that edition. The only known solution is to upgrade to a Server-Class
> edition or split your database into multiple databases...hey, just like you
> would do with MS Access. Sound familiar? That's why MSDE stands for MS
> Desktop Edition, it is a personal replacement or alternative to MS Access,
> but not for Server-class, production, Client/Server or n-Tier solutions,
> only Standard and Enterprise Editions are, and now, the new Workgroup
> Edition-although, WE has its own restrictions.
> Now, the Web Host sounds suspicious. I don't believe anyone would attempt
> to run MSDE as a hosted edition. Are you on a dedicated server or are you
> sharing? Do you know if the hosted database is set to AUTOGROW or not? Do
> you know how much free space is on the drives for the hosted server? Do you
> know if the ISP has quotas turned on for you data file folders-usually, you
> would get a different error message if this were the case, but I would check
> anyway?
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:ObeUpDUYFHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
> ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE => <desired size>)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Andrew
>> I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even
> though
>> there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to
> Autogrow.
>> So space is not the issue.
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
>> Cheers
>> Coburndavis
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on
> for
>> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
>> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery model
>> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you
> try
>> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is
> dependant
>> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can
> play
>> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it
> will
>> cause page splits when you insert.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > What I don't understand is ...
>> >
>> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system tables -
> no
>> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just fine
>> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
>> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
>> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all
> fit
>> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
>> >
>> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how
> much
>> > space that table will be allocated?
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you
> were
>> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time
> it
>> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that
> initiated
>> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and put
>> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that.
> Manually
>> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big
> rows
>> >> because they have binary object in them).
>> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> >> following error:
>> >>
>> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space
> for
>> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> >> filegroup is full.
>> >>
>> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are
> defined
>> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||Nope, that's the exact error message. Unfortunately though, MSDE maximum
size is not necessarily the only possible cause. You do get a different
error message if you max out your 8 concurrent connections, but this is the
message for the Database Size restriciton. Only because I wrestled with a
System Admin for about an hour one time before he brought that little tidbit
of information to my attention...then all became clear.
That and the fact that we are talking about an ISP system would beg this
question, but I would certainly ask or at least query the system to find
out.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uL2kFcaFHA.720@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
> that edition.
If my memory serves me, you get some other error message of you reach max
data size on MSDE. Not
sure, though...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u7w8CaGaFHA.3488@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If space is NOT an issue and you are truely set to AUTOGROW, then I
suspect
> you current database size is, hmmm, about, what? 2 GB?
> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
> that edition. The only known solution is to upgrade to a Server-Class
> edition or split your database into multiple databases...hey, just like
you
> would do with MS Access. Sound familiar? That's why MSDE stands for MS
> Desktop Edition, it is a personal replacement or alternative to MS Access,
> but not for Server-class, production, Client/Server or n-Tier solutions,
> only Standard and Enterprise Editions are, and now, the new Workgroup
> Edition-although, WE has its own restrictions.
> Now, the Web Host sounds suspicious. I don't believe anyone would attempt
> to run MSDE as a hosted edition. Are you on a dedicated server or are you
> sharing? Do you know if the hosted database is set to AUTOGROW or not?
Do
> you know how much free space is on the drives for the hosted server? Do
you
> know if the ISP has quotas turned on for you data file folders-usually,
you
> would get a different error message if this were the case, but I would
check
> anyway?
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> message news:ObeUpDUYFHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
> ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE => <desired size>)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Andrew
>> I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even
> though
>> there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to
> Autogrow.
>> So space is not the issue.
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
> this.
>> Cheers
>> Coburndavis
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on
> for
>> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
>> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery
model
>> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you
> try
>> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is
> dependant
>> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can
> play
>> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it
> will
>> cause page splits when you insert.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > What I don't understand is ...
>> >
>> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system
tables -
> no
>> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just
fine
>> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
>> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
>> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all
> fit
>> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
>> >
>> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how
> much
>> > space that table will be allocated?
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you
> were
>> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time
> it
>> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that
> initiated
>> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and
put
>> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that.
> Manually
>> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big
> rows
>> >> because they have binary object in them).
>> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> >> following error:
>> >>
>> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space
> for
>> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> >> filegroup is full.
>> >>
>> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are
> defined
>> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||> Nope, that's the exact error message.
Thanks for the confirmation, Anthony.
And I agree that it would be surprising if the ISP run on an MSDE, but you have seen stranger things
before. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23aJaEFiaFHA.1040@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Nope, that's the exact error message. Unfortunately though, MSDE maximum
> size is not necessarily the only possible cause. You do get a different
> error message if you max out your 8 concurrent connections, but this is the
> message for the Database Size restriciton. Only because I wrestled with a
> System Admin for about an hour one time before he brought that little tidbit
> of information to my attention...then all became clear.
> That and the fact that we are talking about an ISP system would beg this
> question, but I would certainly ask or at least query the system to find
> out.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23uL2kFcaFHA.720@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
>> that edition.
> If my memory serves me, you get some other error message of you reach max
> data size on MSDE. Not
> sure, though...
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:u7w8CaGaFHA.3488@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> If space is NOT an issue and you are truely set to AUTOGROW, then I
> suspect
>> you current database size is, hmmm, about, what? 2 GB?
>> If so, then you are using MSDE and just found one of the restrictions of
>> that edition. The only known solution is to upgrade to a Server-Class
>> edition or split your database into multiple databases...hey, just like
> you
>> would do with MS Access. Sound familiar? That's why MSDE stands for MS
>> Desktop Edition, it is a personal replacement or alternative to MS Access,
>> but not for Server-class, production, Client/Server or n-Tier solutions,
>> only Standard and Enterprise Editions are, and now, the new Workgroup
>> Edition-although, WE has its own restrictions.
>> Now, the Web Host sounds suspicious. I don't believe anyone would attempt
>> to run MSDE as a hosted edition. Are you on a dedicated server or are you
>> sharing? Do you know if the hosted database is set to AUTOGROW or not?
> Do
>> you know how much free space is on the drives for the hosted server? Do
> you
>> know if the ISP has quotas turned on for you data file folders-usually,
> you
>> would get a different error message if this were the case, but I would
> check
>> anyway?
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Anthony Thomas
>>
>> --
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
>> message news:ObeUpDUYFHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
>> this.
>> ALTER DATABASE dbname MODIFY FILE ( NAME = logical_file_name, SIZE =>> <desired size>)
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "COBURNDAVIS" <COBURNDAVIS@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AF941E5B-58BF-42F5-8100-B7B5517CCAD4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Andrew
>> I am suffering form the same mesage "PRIMARY File group is full" even
>> though
>> there is about 20GB of space on my hard drive and the DB is set to
>> Autogrow.
>> So space is not the issue.
>> You suggested manually growng the DB, but can you expalin how I would do
>> this.
>> Cheers
>> Coburndavis
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Well it could be that the drive that the primary filegroup is located on
>> for
>> the Web site is low on space and yours isn't. It could be your db is
>> slightly different than the one on the web (indexes, size, recovery
> model
>> etc). How large is your primary file vs. the one on the web? Did you
>> try
>> to grow it manually and see if it errors? The amount of space is
>> dependant
>> mainly on the size and type of data being imported. The indexexing can
>> play
>> a large roles as well especially if the clustered index is such that it
>> will
>> cause page splits when you insert.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uRaTXRVMFHA.2252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > What I don't understand is ...
>> >
>> > The Webhoster set up an empty database for me, just the system
> tables -
>> no
>> > user tables. I have the database on my computer and it works just
> fine
>> > and, apparently, all of my tables fit into the primary file group just
>> > fine. I'm using the IMPORT to transfer four tables to the webhoster
>> > database. If my tables have plenty of space to work well and they all
>> fit
>> > on my computer, why is there not enough space on the target computer?
>> >
>> > When a table is "imported" to another database, what determines how
>> much
>> > space that table will be allocated?
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uxX0fHVMFHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> Chances are the file was simply not big enough to hold the data you
>> were
>> >> trying to import. As such it would attempt to autogrow. If the time
>> it
>> >> takes to autogrow is longer than the timeout of the client that
>> initiated
>> >> the autogrow it will timeout. That may roll back the autogrow and
> put
>> >> you back to where you started. Always ensure you have plenty of free
>> >> space in the db before attempting any operation such as that.
>> Manually
>> >> grow the file(s) and you should be all set.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "G Dean Blake" <gb@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eh54jjUMFHA.2604@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big
>> rows
>> >> because they have binary object in them).
>> >> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the
>> >> following error:
>> >>
>> >> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space
>> for
>> >> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY'
>> >> filegroup is full.
>> >>
>> >> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are
>> defined
>> >> in my tables? is my web hoster out of space?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>|||Try this:
Right click on database in question. Select Properties. Then go to 'Data
Files' Tab.
Under the Location Column click on the Elipse Button (the grey square with
the three dots!!)
Go to the path where you .MDF's are saved (usually program Files\Microsoft
SQL Server\MSSQL\Datain the File Name Box type any name (best to use the DB
Name with Underscore 2 eg:DBNAME_02
You can then click on the Sapce aloocted ( whcih by default is 1 to say 2000
MB (2GB) or just let it grow in accordance with the RFile Properties you
selected on the lower half of the screen.
--
Cheers
Coburndavis
"G Dean Blake" wrote:
> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
> because they have binary object in them).
> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the following
> error:
> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is
> full.
> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined in my
> tables? is my web hoster out of space?
> Thanks,
> G
>
>|||Try this:
Right click on database in question. Select Properties. Then go to 'Data
Files' Tab.
Under the Location Column click on the Elipse Button (the grey square with
the three dots!!)
Go to the path where you .MDF's are saved (usually program Files\Microsoft
SQL Server\MSSQL\Data In the File Name Box type any name (best to use the DB
Name with Underscore 2 eg:DBNAME_02
You can then click on the Space allocated ( which by default is 1 to say
2000 MB (2GB) or just let it grow in accordance with the File Properties you
selected on the lower half of the screen.
--
Cheers
Coburndavis
"G Dean Blake" wrote:
> I'm uploading a table to my Web Hosting Site that has 499 rows (big rows
> because they have binary object in them).
> After an hour or so of importing using a DTS package, I get the following
> error:
> Error at Destination for row number 499. could not allocate space for
> object 'Pictures' in database "FamPhoto1' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is
> full.
> What could cause this error? All of the space allocations are defined in my
> tables? is my web hoster out of space?
> Thanks,
> G
>
>

Friday, March 30, 2012

Print Multi table report with a range of parameters.

Print Issues with Reporting Services

Print event in ReportViewer?

Print event in ReportViewer?

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Print directly frm PDF format

Print button on toolbar

Print Button

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Primary Key Question

Primary Key Question

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Primary Key and Table Design Question

Friday, March 9, 2012

Primary File Group Full?

Primary File Group Full?

Primary File Group Full?

Preventing Deadlock

Blog Archive

About Me