Background image sizing

Hello,
I have a jpg image to use as report background. How can I strecth the image in order to fill the page background (i'm using PDF output) with my image ?

Thanks,
PierreIn report designer, go to the properties editor window and select "Body" for the report body from the drop down list.
The report body has a background image property. Note: page header and page footer are independent of the report body - but you can also use images in those page sections.

-- Robert|||Hello Robert,
thanks for the reply. I already Tryied these settings but I can't stretch the background image, just set the repeating style.

Since the report must be rendered as PDF only, how can I create a background image so that it fits perfctly to the resulting PDF ? I guess it depends on the DPI used in reporting services.

Thanks,
Pierre|||

Sorry, we don't have an option right now that would stretch the image.

If your image fits the physical page size (i.e. Report.PageSize - Report.Margins) at 96 dpi, it should also look fine then in PDF at higher resolutions.

-- Robert

|||

Hi Robert,
ok, hoping for the next release :-)

Thanks,
Pierre

sql

Background image sizing

Hello,
I have a jpg image to use as report background. How can I strecth the image in order to fill the page background (i'm using PDF output) with my image ?

Thanks,
PierreIn report designer, go to the properties editor window and select "Body" for the report body from the drop down list.
The report body has a background image property. Note: page header and page footer are independent of the report body - but you can also use images in those page sections.

-- Robert|||Hello Robert,
thanks for the reply. I already Tryied these settings but I can't stretch the background image, just set the repeating style.

Since the report must be rendered as PDF only, how can I create a background image so that it fits perfctly to the resulting PDF ? I guess it depends on the DPI used in reporting services.

Thanks,
Pierre|||

Sorry, we don't have an option right now that would stretch the image.

If your image fits the physical page size (i.e. Report.PageSize - Report.Margins) at 96 dpi, it should also look fine then in PDF at higher resolutions.

-- Robert

|||

Hi Robert,
ok, hoping for the next release :-)

Thanks,
Pierre

avoiding cursors how to do this?

OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order that
matches specific criteria
EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
news:%23RYZxTnXGHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order
> that matches specific criteria
>
> EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
>
> If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
> select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
>
> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
>
No. And cursors aren't _that_ slow. Executing the procedure for each row
would not be noticably better without a cursor.
The potential performance problem is that you are executing the logic of the
procedure on a row-wise basis, instead of a set-wise basis. The only way to
avoid the row-wise processing would be to unwrap the guts of
dbo.sprPassUpline and create a version which operated over the entire set of
rows. Something like
EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUplineByStatus 3
David|||declare @.loop int
declare @.rowcount int
declare @.lngOrder int
declare @.RC int
create table #OrderList (
ROW_ID int identity ,
lngOrder int not null )
insert into #OrderList ( lngOrder ) select lngOrderID from tblOrders where
intStatus = 3
declare @.loop = min(ROW_ID), @.rowcount = max(ROW_ID) from #OrderList
while @.loop <= @.rowcount
begin
select @.lngOrder = lngOrder from #OrderList where ROW_ID = @.loop
exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
if @.RC <>
begin
-- do whatever
end
select @.loop = @.loop + 1
-- or the below method if you delete any rows from the #OrderList table
for any reason
-- select @.loop= min(ROW_ID) from #OrderList where ROW_ID > @.loop
end
drop table #OrderList
"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
news:%23RYZxTnXGHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order
> that matches specific criteria
>
> EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
>
> If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
> select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
>
> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
>|||"Ben Rum" <bundyrum75@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O8e%f.18404$ic1.16436@.newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> declare @.loop int
> declare @.rowcount int
> declare @.lngOrder int
> declare @.RC int
> create table #OrderList (
> ROW_ID int identity ,
> lngOrder int not null )
> insert into #OrderList ( lngOrder ) select lngOrderID from tblOrders where
> intStatus = 3
> declare @.loop = min(ROW_ID), @.rowcount = max(ROW_ID) from #OrderList
> while @.loop <= @.rowcount
> begin
> select @.lngOrder = lngOrder from #OrderList where ROW_ID = @.loop
> exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
> if @.RC <>
> begin
> -- do whatever
> end
> select @.loop = @.loop + 1
> -- or the below method if you delete any rows from the #OrderList table
> for any reason
> -- select @.loop= min(ROW_ID) from #OrderList where ROW_ID > @.loop
> end
> drop table #OrderList
>
OK, that is tecnically what the OP asked for, but in what possible way is
that better than using a cursor?
declare cOrders cursor local static for
select lngOrderID from tblOrders
where intStatus = 3
declare @.lngOrder int,
@.RC int
open cOrders
fetch next from cOrders into @.lngOrder
while @.@.fetch_status = 0
begin
exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
if @.RC <> 0
begin
raiserror('sprPassUpline failed returning %d',16,1,@.RC)
end
fetch next from cOrders into @.lngOrder
end
close cOrders
?
Davud|||> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
Possibly, but since you haven't told us what the SP does we can't tell you.
The question is not "How do I do X once for each row without a cursor?"
The question is "How do I do X for the whole set INSTEAD OF once for each
row?"
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Well actually in normal day to day business this SP is only called for one
row at a time when that order enters a given state. But when initializing
new systems it must be called for everything on import. Guess that is a
good enough reason to redo the SP and just make it set based so it'll handle
one or more. We never had this requirement before so it was never an issue.
Thanks for jumping in everybody.
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:uvSpxznXGHA.5012@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
> Possibly, but since you haven't told us what the SP does we can't tell
> you.
> The question is not "How do I do X once for each row without a cursor?"
> The question is "How do I do X for the whole set INSTEAD OF once for each
> row?"
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>

avoiding cursors how to do this?

OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order that
matches specific criteria
EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
news:%23RYZxTnXGHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order
> that matches specific criteria
>
> EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
>
> If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
> select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
>
> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
>
No. And cursors aren't _that_ slow. Executing the procedure for each row
would not be noticably better without a cursor.
The potential performance problem is that you are executing the logic of the
procedure on a row-wise basis, instead of a set-wise basis. The only way to
avoid the row-wise processing would be to unwrap the guts of
dbo.sprPassUpline and create a version which operated over the entire set of
rows. Something like
EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUplineByStatus 3
David|||declare @.loop int
declare @.rowcount int
declare @.lngOrder int
declare @.RC int
create table #OrderList (
ROW_ID int identity ,
lngOrder int not null )
insert into #OrderList ( lngOrder ) select lngOrderID from tblOrders where
intStatus = 3
declare @.loop = min(ROW_ID), @.rowcount = max(ROW_ID) from #OrderList
while @.loop <= @.rowcount
begin
select @.lngOrder = lngOrder from #OrderList where ROW_ID = @.loop
exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
if @.RC <>
begin
-- do whatever
end
select @.loop = @.loop + 1
-- or the below method if you delete any rows from the #OrderList table
for any reason
-- select @.loop= min(ROW_ID) from #OrderList where ROW_ID > @.loop
end
drop table #OrderList
"Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
news:%23RYZxTnXGHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> OK say I want to execute the following stored procedure for every order
> that matches specific criteria
>
> EXECUTE @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
>
> If my set of orders to process is returned by this query:
> select lngOrderID from tblOrders where intstatus=3
>
> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
>|||"Ben Rum" <bundyrum75@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O8e%f.18404$ic1.16436@.newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> declare @.loop int
> declare @.rowcount int
> declare @.lngOrder int
> declare @.RC int
> create table #OrderList (
> ROW_ID int identity ,
> lngOrder int not null )
> insert into #OrderList ( lngOrder ) select lngOrderID from tblOrders where
> intStatus = 3
> declare @.loop = min(ROW_ID), @.rowcount = max(ROW_ID) from #OrderList
> while @.loop <= @.rowcount
> begin
> select @.lngOrder = lngOrder from #OrderList where ROW_ID = @.loop
> exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
> if @.RC <>
> begin
> -- do whatever
> end
> select @.loop = @.loop + 1
> -- or the below method if you delete any rows from the #OrderList table
> for any reason
> -- select @.loop= min(ROW_ID) from #OrderList where ROW_ID > @.loop
> end
> drop table #OrderList
>
OK, that is tecnically what the OP asked for, but in what possible way is
that better than using a cursor?
declare cOrders cursor local static for
select lngOrderID from tblOrders
where intStatus = 3
declare @.lngOrder int,
@.RC int
open cOrders
fetch next from cOrders into @.lngOrder
while @.@.fetch_status = 0
begin
exec @.RC = dbo.sprPassUpline @.lngOrder
if @.RC <> 0
begin
raiserror('sprPassUpline failed returning %d',16,1,@.RC)
end
fetch next from cOrders into @.lngOrder
end
close cOrders
?
Davud|||> Is there any way to do this without resorting to a cursor?
Possibly, but since you haven't told us what the SP does we can't tell you.
The question is not "How do I do X once for each row without a cursor?"
The question is "How do I do X for the whole set INSTEAD OF once for each
row?"
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Well actually in normal day to day business this SP is only called for one
row at a time when that order enters a given state. But when initializing
new systems it must be called for everything on import. Guess that is a
good enough reason to redo the SP and just make it set based so it'll handle
one or more. We never had this requirement before so it was never an issue.
Thanks for jumping in everybody.
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:uvSpxznXGHA.5012@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Possibly, but since you haven't told us what the SP does we can't tell
> you.
> The question is not "How do I do X once for each row without a cursor?"
> The question is "How do I do X for the whole set INSTEAD OF once for each
> row?"
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>

Avoid update without where clause

Hi every one,
Using SQL 7.0,
Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
(refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
clause ?
In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
Thanks !
Donald
No, this is a case where your developers must use common sense, and look
over their scripts before executing them.
If it's any consolation, SQL Server also won't prevent you from tripping
over the power cord or using a sledgehammer against the CPU. ;-)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald
|||Pretty much your only option is SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS. This is set =
at the connection level
A snip from Books Online (within the SQL Server program group):
Transact-SQL Reference=20
=20
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS
Sets implicit transaction mode for the connection.
Syntax
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS { ON | OFF }
Remarks
When ON, SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS sets the connection into implicit =
transaction mode. When OFF, it returns the connection to autocommit =
transaction mode.
When a connection is in implicit transaction mode and the connection is =
not currently in a transaction, executing any of the following =
statements starts a transaction:
--=20
Keith
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi every one,
>=20
> Using SQL 7.0,
>=20
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where=20
> clause ? =20
>=20
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
>=20
> Thanks !
>=20
> Donald
|||Actually, I guess you could enforce this by preventing direct access to the
table and forcing access via stored procedures. Depending on how flexible
the where clause can be, you may need to read these articles;
http://www.sommarskog.se/dyn-search.html
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald
|||Would make a handy feature, but there's isn't anything like that build-in at
the moment.
You could achive this by using triggers, for example:
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/tracking_sq...y_triggers.htm
but may not be completely safe.
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
Hi every one,
Using SQL 7.0,
Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
(refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
clause ?
In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
Thanks !
Donald
|||Donald,
You could get into the habit of always executing things on the live
servers like this:
BEGIN TRAN
<your DML code>
<some select statements to verify your DML code>
When you are satisfied, issue a COMMIT TRAN, or if you cocked it up,
issue a ROLLBACK TRAN. I always do this when making changes to
production, even if they have been scripted and tested.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Donald wrote:

> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald
|||It didn't sound like he was worried about having to roll back the update or
delete, I think he was worried about preventing users from locking up the
server by trying to act on the whole table?
Maybe I read it wrong...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eaZ#8XAREHA.2032@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Donald,
> You could get into the habit of always executing things on the live
> servers like this:
> BEGIN TRAN
> <your DML code>
> <some select statements to verify your DML code>
> When you are satisfied, issue a COMMIT TRAN, or if you cocked it up,
> issue a ROLLBACK TRAN. I always do this when making changes to
> production, even if they have been scripted and tested.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Donald wrote:
|||I agree with Mark completely.
We are in the habit of always starting a query for delete with a BEGIN TRAN. Especially when doing the work in PRODUCTION - but regardless - on the TEST BOX it's needed so you can be satisfied with your query action.
Then a SELECT statement to get us happy with the recordcount. Either "details" or a COUNT(*).
Then the DELETE statement.
Then sometimes another SELECT statement to prove that all the records from the first SELECT really got deleted.
Then we use a "-- ROLLBACK COMMIT" as the final line.
This is commented out so that you have to DBLCLICK on the keyword that you want to use.
Carefully review the RESULTS PANEL - check the counts. With the way "poor" joins can increase row presentation, this is extremely important - you might have more ROWS in the "FIRST SELECT" then in the actual DELETE row count.
We even save these AD HOC queries just to CYA when the folks up top ask "what just happened?". Sometimes even save the QUERY DATA GRID to a NOTEPAD file for proof...
|||Good answer, i like the sledgehammer example
Thank you

>--Original Message--
>No, this is a case where your developers must use common
sense, and look
>over their scripts before executing them.
>If it's any consolation, SQL Server also won't prevent
you from tripping
>over the power cord or using a sledgehammer against the
CPU. ;-)
>--
>Aaron Bertrand
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>
>.
>
|||I just want to prevent massive update or delete from ME!
I often have to update tables in production to fix data
from stupid VB applications
I was just wondering if it was possible without using
transactions. But i know, i should use TRANS.
As Narayana said : Would make a handy feature
Thank you for your help
Donald

>--Original Message--
>It didn't sound like he was worried about having to roll
back the update or
>delete, I think he was worried about preventing users
from locking up the
>server by trying to act on the whole table?
>Maybe I read it wrong...
>--
>Aaron Bertrand
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:eaZ#8XAREHA.2032@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
on the live[vbcol=seagreen]
cocked it up,[vbcol=seagreen]
changes to[vbcol=seagreen]
void
>
>.
>

Avoid update without where clause

Hi every one,
Using SQL 7.0,
Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
(refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
clause ?
In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
Thanks !
DonaldNo, this is a case where your developers must use common sense, and look
over their scripts before executing them.
If it's any consolation, SQL Server also won't prevent you from tripping
over the power cord or using a sledgehammer against the CPU. ;-)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald|||Pretty much your only option is SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS. This is set =
at the connection level
A snip from Books Online (within the SQL Server program group):
Transact-SQL Reference=20
=20
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS
Sets implicit transaction mode for the connection.
Syntax
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS { ON | OFF }
Remarks
When ON, SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS sets the connection into implicit =
transaction mode. When OFF, it returns the connection to autocommit =
transaction mode.
When a connection is in implicit transaction mode and the connection is =
not currently in a transaction, executing any of the following =
statements starts a transaction:
--=20
Keith
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi every one,
>=20
> Using SQL 7.0,
>=20
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where=20
> clause ? =20
>=20
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
>=20
> Thanks !
>=20
> Donald|||Actually, I guess you could enforce this by preventing direct access to the
table and forcing access via stored procedures. Depending on how flexible
the where clause can be, you may need to read these articles;
http://www.sommarskog.se/dyn-search.html
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald|||Would make a handy feature, but there's isn't anything like that build-in at
the moment.
You could achive this by using triggers, for example:
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/tracking_s...by_triggers.htm
but may not be completely safe.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
Hi every one,
Using SQL 7.0,
Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
(refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
clause ?
In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
Thanks !
Donald|||Donald,
You could get into the habit of always executing things on the live
servers like this:
BEGIN TRAN
<your DML code>
<some select statements to verify your DML code>
When you are satisfied, issue a COMMIT TRAN, or if you cocked it up,
issue a ROLLBACK TRAN. I always do this when making changes to
production, even if they have been scripted and tested.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Donald wrote:

> Hi every one,
> Using SQL 7.0,
> Without using transaction, is there a way that SQL void
> (refuse) any update or delete if there is no where
> clause ?
> In order to avoid devastating lapse of memory :o\
> Thanks !
> Donald|||It didn't sound like he was worried about having to roll back the update or
delete, I think he was worried about preventing users from locking up the
server by trying to act on the whole table?
Maybe I read it wrong...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eaZ#8XAREHA.2032@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Donald,
> You could get into the habit of always executing things on the live
> servers like this:
> BEGIN TRAN
> <your DML code>
> <some select statements to verify your DML code>
> When you are satisfied, issue a COMMIT TRAN, or if you cocked it up,
> issue a ROLLBACK TRAN. I always do this when making changes to
> production, even if they have been scripted and tested.
> --
> Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.markallison.co.uk
> Donald wrote:
>|||I agree with Mark completely.
We are in the habit of always starting a query for delete with a BEGIN TRAN.
Especially when doing the work in PRODUCTION - but regardless - on the TES
T BOX it's needed so you can be satisfied with your query action.
Then a SELECT statement to get us happy with the recordcount. Either "detai
ls" or a COUNT(*).
Then the DELETE statement.
Then sometimes another SELECT statement to prove that all the records from t
he first SELECT really got deleted.
Then we use a "-- ROLLBACK COMMIT" as the final line.
This is commented out so that you have to DBLCLICK on the keyword that you w
ant to use.
Carefully review the RESULTS PANEL - check the counts. With the way "poor"
joins can increase row presentation, this is extremely important - you might
have more ROWS in the "FIRST SELECT" then in the actual DELETE row count.
We even save these AD HOC queries just to CYA when the folks up top ask "wha
t just happened'". Sometimes even save the QUERY DATA GRID to a NOTEPAD fi
le for proof...|||Good answer, i like the sledgehammer example
Thank you

>--Original Message--
>No, this is a case where your developers must use common
sense, and look
>over their scripts before executing them.
>If it's any consolation, SQL Server also won't prevent
you from tripping
>over the power cord or using a sledgehammer against the
CPU. ;-)
>--
>Aaron Bertrand
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>"Donald" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:1383601c443ff$12727930$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
>
>.
>|||I just want to prevent massive update or delete from ME!
I often have to update tables in production to fix data
from stupid VB applications
I was just wondering if it was possible without using
transactions. But i know, i should use TRANS.
As Narayana said : Would make a handy feature
Thank you for your help
Donald

>--Original Message--
>It didn't sound like he was worried about having to roll
back the update or
>delete, I think he was worried about preventing users
from locking up the
>server by trying to act on the whole table?
>Maybe I read it wrong...
>--
>Aaron Bertrand
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>
>"Mark Allison" <marka@.no.tinned.meat.mvps.org> wrote in
message
>news:eaZ#8XAREHA.2032@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
on the live[vbcol=seagreen]
cocked it up,[vbcol=seagreen]
changes to[vbcol=seagreen]
void[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>