Duplicate records - no error message?

Hi,
I am in the process of moving my back end to the SQL server. I have a test
version in the SQLserver and the front end is in Access 2000 with linked
tables.
When the user enters a duplicate key (primary key) and the user tries to
save the record in Access (using a save button), an error message is
displayed by Jet.
The same kind of error message does not appear when the back end is in SQL
server. The duplicate record does not get stored as well.
Why is this happening?> The same kind of error message does not appear when the back end is in SQL
> server. The duplicate record does not get stored as well.
> Why is this happening?
Well, what does the statement look like? Did you use profiler to see what
is going into and coming out of SQL Server?|||Hi,
Thanks for responsing.
No...I am a newbie to SQL server and don't know how to do it.
Access (jet) gives an error message when I try to save a duplicate record. -
"The changes you requested to the table were not successful because they
would create duplicate values in the index, primary key or relationship".
This message appears when the f/e and the b/e are Access.
When the b/e is SQL for the same table and Access is the front end..no error
message appears.
Do you suggest I learn how to use a profiler and figure it out?
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> Well, what does the statement look like? Did you use profiler to see what
> is going into and coming out of SQL Server?
>
>|||Hi
Since you have not provided your INSERT statement ,see Itzik Ben-Gan's
exanple to deal with dulicates
CREATE TABLE #Demo (
idNo int identity(1,1),
colA int,
colB int
)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (1,6)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (1,6)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (2,4)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (3,3)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (4,2)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (3,3)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (5,1)
INSERT INTO #Demo(colA,colB) VALUES (8,1)
PRINT 'Table'
SELECT * FROM #Demo
PRINT 'Duplicates in Table'
SELECT * FROM #Demo
WHERE idNo IN
(SELECT B.idNo
FROM #Demo A JOIN #Demo B
ON A.idNo <> B.idNo
AND A.colA = B.colA
AND A.colB = B.colB)
PRINT 'Duplicates to Delete'
SELECT * FROM #Demo
WHERE idNo IN
(SELECT B.idNo
FROM #Demo A JOIN #Demo B
ON A.idNo < B.idNo -- < this time, not <>
AND A.colA = B.colA
AND A.colB = B.colB)
DELETE FROM #Demo
WHERE idNo IN
(SELECT B.idNo
FROM #Demo A JOIN #Demo B
ON A.idNo < B.idNo -- < this time, not <>
AND A.colA = B.colA
AND A.colB = B.colB)
PRINT 'Cleaned-up Table'
SELECT * FROM #Demo
DROP TABLE #Demo
"Priya Henry" <PriyaHenry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A756C75-F872-4168-A497-905031937F0B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Thanks for responsing.
> No...I am a newbie to SQL server and don't know how to do it.
> Access (jet) gives an error message when I try to save a duplicate
> record. -
> "The changes you requested to the table were not successful because they
> would create duplicate values in the index, primary key or relationship".
> This message appears when the f/e and the b/e are Access.
> When the b/e is SQL for the same table and Access is the front end..no
> error
> message appears.
> Do you suggest I learn how to use a profiler and figure it out?
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>|||Does your table in SQL Server have a unique index on the relevant column?
"Priya Henry" wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for responsing.
> No...I am a newbie to SQL server and don't know how to do it.
> Access (jet) gives an error message when I try to save a duplicate record.
-
> "The changes you requested to the table were not successful because they
> would create duplicate values in the index, primary key or relationship".
> This message appears when the f/e and the b/e are Access.
> When the b/e is SQL for the same table and Access is the front end..no err
or
> message appears.
> Do you suggest I learn how to use a profiler and figure it out?
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>|||Yes...My table does have an unique index. Is it possible that Jet is
stopping the message?
"NH" wrote:
> Does your table in SQL Server have a unique index on the relevant column?
> "Priya Henry" wrote:
>|||I havnt seen this before. Our system has a SQL Server backend and Access
front end and the error message do appear when trying to add in a duplicate
into a unique undexed column.
Have you checked the linked tables in Access, are they pointing to the
correct SQL Server database?
"Priya Henry" wrote:
> Yes...My table does have an unique index. Is it possible that Jet is
> stopping the message?
> "NH" wrote:
>sql

Duplex printing SRS 2000

Is it possible to set a printer to duplex within SQL Reporting Service 2000?
I have several reports to print and need to switch back and forth between
duplex (Front and Back) and one sided printing.
TIABump
"bhughes" wrote:
> Is it possible to set a printer to duplex within SQL Reporting Service 2000?
> I have several reports to print and need to switch back and forth between
> duplex (Front and Back) and one sided printing.
> TIA
>
>|||I guess no one else has been able to do this either. Time to start looking
for a new report writer.
"bhughes" wrote:
> Is it possible to set a printer to duplex within SQL Reporting Service 2000?
> I have several reports to print and need to switch back and forth between
> duplex (Front and Back) and one sided printing.
> TIA
>
>sql

Duplex printing in reporting services

I have been working on this problem for days. I have a report that is grouped
and will be printed duplex (front and back). There is a page break after each
group. I want to ensure that the start of a new group does not end up printed
on the back side of an old group. For example:

Page 1 (printed on front side of paper): group 1
Page 2 (printed on back side of paper): more group 1
Page 3 (printed on front side of paper): more group 1
Page 4 (printed on on back side of paper): group 2 < This is a problem

I need:

Page 1 (front side): group 1
Page 2 (back side): more group 1
Page 3 (front side): more group 1
Page 4 (back side): <This Page Intentionally Left Blank>
Page 5 (front side): group 2

Issues that I've run into include the fact that SSRS renders the entire body
first, before rendering the header/footer. This prevents the body of the
report from knowing which page it will end up on when it is rendered (and is
also why you cannot reference Globals!PageNumber from the body).

The restriction above also prevents using a variable in custom code to know
when to generate a page break. If you set this variable in the header/footer
then the body will never see it as the entire body is rendered first and will
therefore only see the initial state of the variable.

I have seen this issue posted in a number of places,
but no one ever has a solution to this (except switching back to
Crystal Reports). Have any MVPs ever addressed this issue? I am
really hoping someone can offer a good solution or work-around.

Finally - I have resolved this problem. We are writing the results to a pdf file, and was therefore able to use PDFSharp to update the output file before making it available to our users. With PDFSharp, I loop through each page of the exported report and determine whether it is the start of a new group (by checking the contents of the page). If it is a new group and the page number is EVEN, then I insert a blank page just before. So while there is no way to determine page numbers in Reporting Services, there is a way to manipulate the pdf output to be correct for duplex printing.

Duplex printing in reporting services

I have been working on this problem for days. I have a report that is grouped
and will be printed duplex (front and back). There is a page break after each
group. I want to ensure that the start of a new group does not end up printed
on the back side of an old group. For example:

Page 1 (printed on front side of paper): group 1
Page 2 (printed on back side of paper): more group 1
Page 3 (printed on front side of paper): more group 1
Page 4 (printed on on back side of paper): group 2 < This is a problem

I need:

Page 1 (front side): group 1
Page 2 (back side): more group 1
Page 3 (front side): more group 1
Page 4 (back side): <This Page Intentionally Left Blank>
Page 5 (front side): group 2

Issues that I've run into include the fact that SSRS renders the entire body
first, before rendering the header/footer. This prevents the body of the
report from knowing which page it will end up on when it is rendered (and is
also why you cannot reference Globals!PageNumber from the body).

The restriction above also prevents using a variable in custom code to know
when to generate a page break. If you set this variable in the header/footer
then the body will never see it as the entire body is rendered first and will
therefore only see the initial state of the variable.

I have seen this issue posted in a number of places,
but no one ever has a solution to this (except switching back to
Crystal Reports). Have any MVPs ever addressed this issue? I am
really hoping someone can offer a good solution or work-around.

Finally - I have resolved this problem. We are writing the results to a pdf file, and was therefore able to use PDFSharp to update the output file before making it available to our users. With PDFSharp, I loop through each page of the exported report and determine whether it is the start of a new group (by checking the contents of the page). If it is a new group and the page number is EVEN, then I insert a blank page just before. So while there is no way to determine page numbers in Reporting Services, there is a way to manipulate the pdf output to be correct for duplex printing.

Dump Transaction Log

Hello,
I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
log for the database to free up some log space.
How can I dump the transaction log?
Thanks,
C
BACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
{
[ WITH
{ NO_LOG | TRUNCATE_ONLY } ]
}
example:
BACKUP LOG Northwind WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
if you dont need your transaction logs backed up regularly (not worried
about data loss, etc) then I recommend placing the database in SIMPLE
Recovery Mode.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.c om...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> C
|||backup log <databasename> to disk = 'filename'
Also check you recovery mode
select databasepropertyex('databasename','Recovery')
If you don't need point in time recovery, set the database to simple
recovery mode
alter database <databasename> set recovery simple
and just use full backups. If you require more upto date backups set up a
regular job to backup your transaction log (the easisest way is to use a
maintenance plan). You can also set the log file to autogrow to prevent this
issue assuming you have done one of the steps above. You should set your log
to a reasonable size so its not constally growing. Have a look at
INF: Shrinking the Transaction Log in
SQL Server 2000 with DBCC SHRINKFILE
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q272318
INF: How to Shrink the SQL Server 7.0 Transaction Log
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;256650
INF: Causes of SQL Transaction Log Filling Up
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;110139
INFO: Reasons Why SQL Transaction Log Is Not Being Truncated
http://support.microsoft.com/default...kb;EN-US;62866
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.c om...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> C

Dump Transaction Log

Hello,
I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
log for the database to free up some log space.
How can I dump the transaction log?
Thanks,
CBACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
{
[ WITH
{ NO_LOG | TRUNCATE_ONLY } ]
}
example:
BACKUP LOG Northwind WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
if you dont need your transaction logs backed up regularly (not worried
about data loss, etc) then I recommend placing the database in SIMPLE
Recovery Mode.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.com...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> C|||backup log <databasename> to disk = 'filename'
Also check you recovery mode
select databasepropertyex('databasename','Recovery')
If you don't need point in time recovery, set the database to simple
recovery mode
alter database <databasename> set recovery simple
and just use full backups. If you require more upto date backups set up a
regular job to backup your transaction log (the easisest way is to use a
maintenance plan). You can also set the log file to autogrow to prevent this
issue assuming you have done one of the steps above. You should set your log
to a reasonable size so its not constally growing. Have a look at
INF: Shrinking the Transaction Log in
SQL Server 2000 with DBCC SHRINKFILE
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q272318
INF: How to Shrink the SQL Server 7.0 Transaction Log
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;256650
INF: Causes of SQL Transaction Log Filling Up
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;110139
INFO: Reasons Why SQL Transaction Log Is Not Being Truncated
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;62866
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.com...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> Csql

Dump Transaction Log

Hello,
I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
log for the database to free up some log space.
How can I dump the transaction log?
Thanks,
CBACKUP LOG { database_name | @.database_name_var }
{
[ WITH
{ NO_LOG | TRUNCATE_ONLY } ]
}
example:
BACKUP LOG Northwind WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
if you dont need your transaction logs backed up regularly (not worried
about data loss, etc) then I recommend placing the database in SIMPLE
Recovery Mode.
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.com...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> C|||backup log <databasename> to disk = 'filename'
Also check you recovery mode
select databasepropertyex('databasename','Recov
ery')
If you don't need point in time recovery, set the database to simple
recovery mode
alter database <databasename> set recovery simple
and just use full backups. If you require more upto date backups set up a
regular job to backup your transaction log (the easisest way is to use a
maintenance plan). You can also set the log file to autogrow to prevent this
issue assuming you have done one of the steps above. You should set your log
to a reasonable size so its not constally growing. Have a look at
INF: Shrinking the Transaction Log in
SQL Server 2000 with DBCC SHRINKFILE
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;Q272318
INF: How to Shrink the SQL Server 7.0 Transaction Log
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;256650
INF: Causes of SQL Transaction Log Filling Up
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;110139
INFO: Reasons Why SQL Transaction Log Is Not Being Truncated
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...=kb;EN-US;62866
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Craig Alexander" <craig@.itas.net> wrote in message
news:2582929c.0407121143.16fa26b9@.posting.google.com...
> Hello,
> I'm getting the following error on 1 of our DB's;
> The log file for database 'database' is full. Back up the transaction
> log for the database to free up some log space.
>
> How can I dump the transaction log?
> Thanks,
> C

Dummy Question

It seems every month when I'm diluged by lots of data I fall back on ole
reliable, Excel. But, I get over 50,000 rows of data to scrub. A colleague
of mine suggested I use a database. Seems simple so far, but having dabbled
in Access, it has always not so intuitive to understand. My question is
two-fold, is SQL a database. I believe its the language of some other
database. If I'm corrent on the later, what database(s) use SQL?

TonyTony,

There's a lot of ground to cover with that one simple question :) SQL
is an abbreviation for Structured Query Language, and it's a language
that is used primarily to retrieve and manipulate data that is stored
in a database system.

There are as many dialects of SQL as there are databases; Access uses
Jet-SQL, SQL Server and Sybase both use Transact-SQL, Oracle has
PL/SQL, and so on. Most databases adhere to a form of generic SQL know
as ANSI-SQL, but there adherance varies.

You may want to start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL

HTH,
Stu

ajocius wrote:
> It seems every month when I'm diluged by lots of data I fall back on ole
> reliable, Excel. But, I get over 50,000 rows of data to scrub. A colleague
> of mine suggested I use a database. Seems simple so far, but having dabbled
> in Access, it has always not so intuitive to understand. My question is
> two-fold, is SQL a database. I believe its the language of some other
> database. If I'm corrent on the later, what database(s) use SQL?
> Tony

Dumb question - MSSql - what is the front end?

Hello there.
If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front end
to a MS SQL database?
I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
say this is geared towards smaller applications.
I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that uses
a MSSQL server.
But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that database?
Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
Forgive me if this question is stupid.
Thanks
DaveWell, strictly speaking, in many current projects your browser (eg,
Internet Explorer) is your "front end", and asp.net is your
middleware.
But you're free to use Access, or to use VB.net or C# to create rich
or smart clients that go directly to SQLServer, plus or minus your own
middleware web services written as VB/C# components, then your rich
clients are smart clients. Or write Python command line or GUI apps,
or J2EE Jakarta/Struts or Atlast/Ajax, or Excel VBA, SQLServer is
happy in any case.
Josh
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:39:50 GMT, "David Smithz"
<dave1900@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Hello there.
>If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
>the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front end
>to a MS SQL database?
>I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
>say this is geared towards smaller applications.
>I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that uses
>a MSSQL server.
>But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
>assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that database?
>Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
>Forgive me if this question is stupid.
>Thanks
>Dave
>|||Sqlserver is just a data store. Sure, you can develop a front-end (client
app) with vb/vb.net/c#/etc. to connect to sqlserver for data. If you're
going to develop something, you might as well use the current technology.
Asp.net is just a name for a web application written in .net. There's really
no difference in data access between a web app-to-sql and a typical client
app-to-sql.
Here is a link to some info that should get you started.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/learning/learn/newtodevelopment/
-oj
"David Smithz" <dave1900@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qlKhg.82685$wl.15748@.text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hello there.
> If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
> the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front
> end to a MS SQL database?
> I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
> say this is geared towards smaller applications.
> I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that
> uses a MSSQL server.
> But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
> assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that
> database?
> Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
> Forgive me if this question is stupid.
> Thanks
> Dave
>|||"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:uw2Z6bpiGHA.4912@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Sqlserver is just a data store. Sure, you can develop a front-end (client
> app) with vb/vb.net/c#/etc. to connect to sqlserver for data. If you're
> going to develop something, you might as well use the current technology.
> Asp.net is just a name for a web application written in .net. There's
> really no difference in data access between a web app-to-sql and a typical
> client app-to-sql.
> Here is a link to some info that should get you started.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/learning/learn/newtodevelopment/
OK thanks for that.
As an example, if someone came to you and said,
"I need to develop a database for my business. It will have about 10 users
(but 5 most of the time) and it must work quickly. I heard Java is good but
you know better then me".
Other details I know are although web access would be useful at times,
generally the database needs to run on the internal network primarily (or
anyway connected to the network via VPN)
Considering they have an installation of SBS 2003 (which I believe comes
with MS SQL 2000) what (as an example) would your answer to be to the
question.
Thanks for any input which will just help me to see if I am thinking along
the right lines compared to others with experience in this field (i.e. you
guys ;) )
Dave|||David Smithz wrote:
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:uw2Z6bpiGHA.4912@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Sqlserver is just a data store. Sure, you can develop a front-end (client
>> app) with vb/vb.net/c#/etc. to connect to sqlserver for data. If you're
>> going to develop something, you might as well use the current technology.
>> Asp.net is just a name for a web application written in .net. There's
>> really no difference in data access between a web app-to-sql and a typical
>> client app-to-sql.
>> Here is a link to some info that should get you started.
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/learning/learn/newtodevelopment/
> OK thanks for that.
> As an example, if someone came to you and said,
> "I need to develop a database for my business. It will have about 10 users
> (but 5 most of the time) and it must work quickly. I heard Java is good but
> you know better then me".
> Other details I know are although web access would be useful at times,
> generally the database needs to run on the internal network primarily (or
> anyway connected to the network via VPN)
> Considering they have an installation of SBS 2003 (which I believe comes
> with MS SQL 2000) what (as an example) would your answer to be to the
> question.
> Thanks for any input which will just help me to see if I am thinking along
> the right lines compared to others with experience in this field (i.e. you
> guys ;) )
> Dave
>
Hi Dave
I'm not a programmer, but I think your question is better asked in a
programmer/developer forum. As already mentioned, SQL server just holds
the data and doesn't really care much about which program gets the data.
SQL server will just handle the request that comes from your application
and then do what's being requested. If these requests comes from a
program written in .net, C## or whatever doesn't really matter.
--
Regards
Steen Schlüter Persson
DBA

Dumb question - MSSql - what is the front end?

Hello there.
If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front end
to a MS SQL database?
I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
say this is geared towards smaller applications.
I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that uses
a MSSQL server.
But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that database?
Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
Forgive me if this question is stupid.
Thanks
DaveWell, strictly speaking, in many current projects your browser (eg,
Internet Explorer) is your "front end", and asp.net is your
middleware.
But you're free to use Access, or to use VB.net or C# to create rich
or smart clients that go directly to SQLServer, plus or minus your own
middleware web services written as VB/C# components, then your rich
clients are smart clients. Or write Python command line or GUI apps,
or J2EE Jakarta/Struts or Atlast/Ajax, or Excel VBA, SQLServer is
happy in any case.
Josh
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:39:50 GMT, "David Smithz"
<dave1900@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Hello there.
>If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
>the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front end
>to a MS SQL database?
>I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
>say this is geared towards smaller applications.
>I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that uses
>a MSSQL server.
>But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
>assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that database
?
>Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
>Forgive me if this question is stupid.
>Thanks
>Dave
>|||Sqlserver is just a data store. Sure, you can develop a front-end (client
app) with vb/vb.net/c#/etc. to connect to sqlserver for data. If you're
going to develop something, you might as well use the current technology.
Asp.net is just a name for a web application written in .net. There's really
no difference in data access between a web app-to-sql and a typical client
app-to-sql.
Here is a link to some info that should get you started.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/l...wtodevelopment/
-oj
"David Smithz" <dave1900@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qlKhg.82685$wl.15748@.text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hello there.
> If I am developing an application that I want to use MSSQL 2000 Server as
> the back end (Which I get as part of SBS 2003) what is the actual front
> end to a MS SQL database?
> I know Access is an option, but I am of the understanding that some people
> say this is geared towards smaller applications.
> I also know one can go away and develop a specific VB application that
> uses a MSSQL server.
> But if someone is going away to develop a database in MSSQL, what is the
> assumed front end to make the actual forms for someone to use that
> database?
> Would ASP.net be a modern front end?
> Forgive me if this question is stupid.
> Thanks
> Dave
>|||"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:uw2Z6bpiGHA.4912@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Sqlserver is just a data store. Sure, you can develop a front-end (client
> app) with vb/vb.net/c#/etc. to connect to sqlserver for data. If you're
> going to develop something, you might as well use the current technology.
> Asp.net is just a name for a web application written in .net. There's
> really no difference in data access between a web app-to-sql and a typical
> client app-to-sql.
> Here is a link to some info that should get you started.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/l...wtodevelopment/
OK thanks for that.
As an example, if someone came to you and said,
"I need to develop a database for my business. It will have about 10 users
(but 5 most of the time) and it must work quickly. I heard Java is good but
you know better then me".
Other details I know are although web access would be useful at times,
generally the database needs to run on the internal network primarily (or
anyway connected to the network via VPN)
Considering they have an installation of SBS 2003 (which I believe comes
with MS SQL 2000) what (as an example) would your answer to be to the
question.
Thanks for any input which will just help me to see if I am thinking along
the right lines compared to others with experience in this field (i.e. you
guys ;) )
Dave|||David Smithz wrote:
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:uw2Z6bpiGHA.4912@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> OK thanks for that.
> As an example, if someone came to you and said,
> "I need to develop a database for my business. It will have about 10 users
> (but 5 most of the time) and it must work quickly. I heard Java is good bu
t
> you know better then me".
> Other details I know are although web access would be useful at times,
> generally the database needs to run on the internal network primarily (or
> anyway connected to the network via VPN)
> Considering they have an installation of SBS 2003 (which I believe comes
> with MS SQL 2000) what (as an example) would your answer to be to the
> question.
> Thanks for any input which will just help me to see if I am thinking along
> the right lines compared to others with experience in this field (i.e. you
> guys ;) )
> Dave
>
Hi Dave
I'm not a programmer, but I think your question is better asked in a
programmer/developer forum. As already mentioned, SQL server just holds
the data and doesn't really care much about which program gets the data.
SQL server will just handle the request that comes from your application
and then do what's being requested. If these requests comes from a
program written in .net, C## or whatever doesn't really matter.
Regards
Steen Schlter Persson
DBA