Hi,
I got below error in the SQL Server Production Server and i checked in the microsoft site it needs to install SQL Server service pack 4 to resolve the
problem.
"A floating point exception occurred in the user process. Current transaction is canceled"
I need help that i want to reproduce this below problem in the SQL Server environment and tried several ways but no luck.
Please advise me how to reproduce the problem.
Would be appreciate your help.
Regards
SathishFor what cause you are trying to do that? Check this ...Link (http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=318196)|||Wants to check after installing service pack 4. so that we can confirm it should not happen in future.
Any clues to reprodue it.
Regards
Sathish|||Wants to check after installing service pack 4. so that we can confirm it should not happen in future.
Any clues to reprodue it.
Regards
Sathish
FYI...
If the following conditions are all true, Microsoft SQL Server may store floating point data with an exponent lower than -308, which may cause floating point underflow exceptions that terminate a clients connection to SQL Server:
• The client application is using stored procedures or server side cursors to perform data modification
and passes the request to the SQL Server server as a remote procedure call (RPC) event.
• The client application is passing parameters for the RPC event to the SQL Server server.
• The column of the table affected by the parameter that is passed is defined as a float datatype.
• If a stored procedure is called, the parameter is defined as a float datatype.
And plz check the previous link that I gave you...You could get you answer there.|||Joydeep,
Thanks for your information. I have tried following ways to reproduce it
1. By using Index Tuning Wizard Execution
2. By passing the expression 0/0 (zero divided by zero) to SQL Server as a floating point value for a stored procedure parameter
3. By trying query with aggregate function
4. By running a Complex Query
5. By Query optimization
But i couldnt able to reproduce it. Do you have any stored procedure or SQL Query to stimulate this problem.
Regards
Sathishsql
2012年3月29日星期四
Floating Point Error - Order By Mystery
I'm having a problem that I think is due to corrupt data. Depending on
the column I use in my order by clause two problems are occuring.
1. No results are returned and I get this error:
A floating point exception occured in the user process.
2. Results are returned but there are a different number of rows depending on which columns I use in my Order By clause.
Examples
SELECT * FROM SymbolStats
ORDER BY calc_date, symbol
Returns - 12207 rows but only includes one of the 25 dates in the table.
-
SELECT * from SymbolStats
ORDER BY current_hv
Returns - 0 rows.
-
SELECT * from SymbolStats
ORDER BY average_hv
Returns - floating point error
With more conditions in the WHERE clause the number of results returned varies greatly.
The
fact that different numbers of rows can be returned from the same query
only differing in how they are ordered seems like a bug.
Does this sound like corrupt data? If so, what are the best methods for fixing it?
Thanks,
patrickYou can run DBCC CHECKDB on your database to look for any possible corruption. You should also check your NT Eventlog for any hardware failures or driver issues or OS related problems.
float point error
We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
float point error
We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/se...n/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/se...n/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/se...n/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/se...n/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
2012年3月27日星期二
float point error
We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
2012年3月26日星期一
FlatFile connection and security
My DTS package, deployed and run from the file system, works just fine for me, but fails when someone else runs it. The only explicit error from the dtexec command is:
Error: 2005-06-24 12:35:03.33
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Password" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that the correct key is available.
End Error
This error just started when we tried to point to a file on a network server instead of a file local to the machine running the package. The other person definitely has access rights to that network server, but the package fails anyway.
One possible solution might be to specify a username/password for the file, but I don't see how to include that in the connection string. Alternatively, this may be a more general security issue with the whole package. I first turned to BOL for some explanations and answers, but wasn't able to find anything specific to my problem.
Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Phil
This is because the default protection level is to encrypt with a user key. That means only a user on his/her machine can open the package.
You probably want to use Package Password here instead.|||
I am getting a similar error on a DTS package created by me and migrated by me and executed by me via Dtexec. Shouldn't ssql 2000 ownership carry over to 2005? The package is not a flat file. And, by the way, where does the "DTS Property" come in?
thanks
Ted
Microsoft (R) SQL Server Execute Package Utility
Version 9.00.1399.06 for 32-bit
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-2005. All rights reserved.
NULL
Started: 9:24:56 AM
Error: 2006-02-08 09:24:56.50
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Property" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that
the correct key is available.
End Error
Error: 2006-02-08 09:24:56.51
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Password" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that
the correct key is available.
End Error
SSIS is a completely new product so I don't think it follows that DTS behaviour should make it into SSIS. Furthermore, there's been a very high profile tightening up of security within Microsoft products and the behaviour you're seeing here is probably as a result of that.
The reason you see references to "DTS" in various places is for legacy reasons. Alot of the product had already been built before the name change came about.
-Jamie
sqlFlatFile connection and security
My DTS package, deployed and run from the file system, works just fine for me, but fails when someone else runs it. The only explicit error from the dtexec command is:
Error: 2005-06-24 12:35:03.33
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Password" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that the correct key is available.
End Error
This error just started when we tried to point to a file on a network server instead of a file local to the machine running the package. The other person definitely has access rights to that network server, but the package fails anyway.
One possible solution might be to specify a username/password for the file, but I don't see how to include that in the connection string. Alternatively, this may be a more general security issue with the whole package. I first turned to BOL for some explanations and answers, but wasn't able to find anything specific to my problem.
Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
PhilThis is because the default protection level is to encrypt with a user key. That means only a user on his/her machine can open the package.
You probably want to use Package Password here instead.|||
I am getting a similar error on a DTS package created by me and migrated by me and executed by me via Dtexec. Shouldn't ssql 2000 ownership carry over to 2005? The package is not a flat file. And, by the way, where does the "DTS Property" come in?
thanks
Ted
Microsoft (R) SQL Server Execute Package Utility
Version 9.00.1399.06 for 32-bit
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-2005. All rights reserved.
NULL
Started: 9:24:56 AM
Error: 2006-02-08 09:24:56.50
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Property" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that
the correct key is available.
End Error
Error: 2006-02-08 09:24:56.51
Code: 0xC0016016
Source:
Description: Failed to decrypt protected XML node "DTS:Password" with error 0x8009000B "Key not valid for use in specified state.". You may not be authorized to access this information. This error occurs when there is a cryptographic error. Verify that
the correct key is available.
End Error
SSIS is a completely new product so I don't think it follows that DTS behaviour should make it into SSIS. Furthermore, there's been a very high profile tightening up of security within Microsoft products and the behaviour you're seeing here is probably as a result of that.
The reason you see references to "DTS" in various places is for legacy reasons. Alot of the product had already been built before the name change came about.
-Jamie
2012年3月25日星期日
Flat file source not option for importing data
I was getting the product error associated with the full version of SSIS not installed so I ran the installation again and selected the Integration Services check box.
Now when attempting to import data into a database, the drop down list doesn't have a flat file option.
How do I import data from a txt, csv file?
Thanks
PatrickCrofoot@.hotmail.com
did you stop and restart Integration Services? is it running under a domain administrator account?|||I have. And no..Simply using SQL Server Management Studio and right clicking my db then choosing import data under tasks. There is no Flat File datasource.
So the other route was to attempt the tutorial via integration services. That's when I get the more descriptive error that the FLATFILE option is not installed correctly.
I've completely un-installed and re-installed SQL Server 2005 and all associated tools. Same problem.
|||I'm having the exact same problem. I'm about to install CTP SP1 to see if it corrects the problem.|||I uninstalled and re-installed the complete application.... twice.. And now it seems to work. Nothing to do with SP1.
Flat file source not option for importing data
I was getting the product error associated with the full version of SSIS not installed so I ran the installation again and selected the Integration Services check box.
Now when attempting to import data into a database, the drop down list doesn't have a flat file option.
How do I import data from a txt, csv file?
Thanks
PatrickCrofoot@.hotmail.com
did you stop and restart Integration Services? is it running under a domain administrator account?|||I have. And no..Simply using SQL Server Management Studio and right clicking my db then choosing import data under tasks. There is no Flat File datasource.
So the other route was to attempt the tutorial via integration services. That's when I get the more descriptive error that the FLATFILE option is not installed correctly.
I've completely un-installed and re-installed SQL Server 2005 and all associated tools. Same problem.
|||I'm having the exact same problem. I'm about to install CTP SP1 to see if it corrects the problem.|||I uninstalled and re-installed the complete application.... twice.. And now it seems to work. Nothing to do with SP1.
2012年3月22日星期四
Flat File Source Column Parsing Error
Hello All,
I have come across this issue with the Flat File Source when the delimiter is set to a comma.
"""KAILUA KONA,HI""","CA",
In the data snippet above and with the setting of using a comma as a column delimiter
and a " as the text qualifer.
the data will be parsed in this fashion:
"""KAILUA as a column:
HI""" as a column
CA as column
when it should be
"KAILUA,HI" as a column
CA as column.
Is there a way to let the Flat File Source to let it know not to parse the data in multiple quotes ?
Thank you
Eric Flores
The flat file parser does not know how to handle embedded qualifiers.
In this case, you can workaround this by loading the qualified data and then stripping the qualifiers in Derived Column or Script transform.
HTH.
|||I will try that out and see if it will work. Though in my data snippet, the comma in question is not even a qualifier but is part of the data.
What I do not get is that in DTS for SQL Server 2000 when specifying a flat file as having comma as the column delimited and a double quote as the text qualifier that when given the data snippet in my previous post that it would parse the data into the correct two columns.
|||
Eric,
feel free to go to the product feedback site below and report your issue. That will create a bug in our system.
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/default.aspx
|||This has been "resolved" in product feedback. Was there a resolution or is this just the way it is going to be?Flat File Source Column Parsing Error
Hello All,
I have come across this issue with the Flat File Source when the delimiter is set to a comma.
"""KAILUA KONA,HI""","CA",
In the data snippet above and with the setting of using a comma as a column delimiter
and a " as the text qualifer.
the data will be parsed in this fashion:
"""KAILUA as a column:
HI""" as a column
CA as column
when it should be
"KAILUA,HI" as a column
CA as column.
Is there a way to let the Flat File Source to let it know not to parse the data in multiple quotes ?
Thank you
Eric Flores
The flat file parser does not know how to handle embedded qualifiers.
In this case, you can workaround this by loading the qualified data and then stripping the qualifiers in Derived Column or Script transform.
HTH.
|||I will try that out and see if it will work. Though in my data snippet, the comma in question is not even a qualifier but is part of the data.
What I do not get is that in DTS for SQL Server 2000 when specifying a flat file as having comma as the column delimited and a double quote as the text qualifier that when given the data snippet in my previous post that it would parse the data into the correct two columns.
|||
Eric,
feel free to go to the product feedback site below and report your issue. That will create a bug in our system.
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/default.aspx
|||This has been "resolved" in product feedback. Was there a resolution or is this just the way it is going to be?sqlFlat File Processing - Cannot get Error Output to Write
I cannot seem to get my flat file to write columns in error when inserting into a SQL table. I have tried a few examples from MS and did not get anything written to my flat file output. I have set the Source Error Output on this flat file and it uses a script task to created the error description and then write it to a Flat File Destination.
I am new to SSIS and have not had any formal training on it. However, I am very familiar with VS.Net/c# and SQL 2000 DTS - I need to get this working ASAP as there are 45 total flat files that need to be processed. Once I have this solved for one, the rest will follow suit.
If more details would help, I can provide them.
Kind Regards,
Ron
Yep, please provide more details. Any error messages? What doesn't work, exactly?|||I'm confused about what you're trying to do. Can you try the description again?|||
Well, I have my flat file source and my SQL server destination. One flat file represents a table and the SQL destination represents one table. The columns are all mapped one-to-one exactly. I had to modify the flat file source data types to get rid of the data type errors. When I run the package, this task fails because of a datatype error. One of the datetime fields is not valid. The flat file that I am having troubles with has 145 columns and about 25000 rows. I have 45 total flat files I need to process. The one that I am having troubles with and would like to log the errors for, is the longest in terms of columns.
Currently, I have the Error Output going to a Script Component that has an output column for Error Description. Under this I have the Flat File Destination that I would like to write the error to. I have tested with a smaller flat file and I manually corrupted the file so it would fail, but this still did not write any error output.
I honestly did not think that what I was doing with SSIS was going to be this challenging, but I was wrong. The high-level overview of what I am ultimately trying to do is process 45 flat files into a SQL DB with 45 tables. The field names in both source and destination are the same. We would eventually like to add some process logging and other check points, but we have to get this proof of concept going first.
Hope this helps a bit more.
|||
ronemac wrote:
Well, I have my flat file source and my SQL server destination. One flat file represents a table and the SQL destination represents one table. The columns are all mapped one-to-one exactly. I had to modify the flat file source data types to get rid of the data type errors. When I run the package, this task fails because of a datatype error. One of the datetime fields is not valid. The flat file that I am having troubles with has 145 columns and about 25000 rows. I have 45 total flat files I need to process. The one that I am having troubles with and would like to log the errors for, is the longest in terms of columns.
Currently, I have the Error Output going to a Script Component that has an output column for Error Description. Under this I have the Flat File Destination that I would like to write the error to. I have tested with a smaller flat file and I manually corrupted the file so it would fail, but this still did not write any error output.
I honestly did not think that what I was doing with SSIS was going to be this challenging, but I was wrong. The high-level overview of what I am ultimately trying to do is process 45 flat files into a SQL DB with 45 tables. The field names in both source and destination are the same. We would eventually like to add some process logging and other check points, but we have to get this proof of concept going first.
Hope this helps a bit more.
In the error output area of the Source Adapter, have you made sure that Redirect Row is set on all the appropriate choices (Error and Truncation for each column)?
|||Yes sir.|||So what I have is this:Flat File Source --> SQL Server Destination
After this fails (the SQL Server Destination is Red while the Flat File Source is green) I look at the Execution Results and I see that the SQL Server Destination had a conversion issue - (Error converting data type DBTYPE_DBTIMESTAMP to datetime)
Unfortunately, there are roughly 20 datetime columns in this table - 145 total columns - so I have no idea which column in which row is failing.
I would like to capture each row (row ID) and column that is failing so I can log it and reject the file. I have tried adding a script task and using the Error Output from the Flat File Source, but I don't even know if this is the correct place. I am sure the file structure looks just fine to SSIS, it's when SQL tries to insert the data that the DT conversion fails.
Suggestions?|||
Redirect errors from the SQL Server destination.
|||That is what I WANT to do, but did not think that was possible - there is no Red arrow for error output on the SQL Destincation Data Flow Component... DId I mention that I was new to SSIS? Sorry.
|||Ron,
Some stuff here that may help:
Get error descriptions
(http://blogs.conchango.com/jamiethomson/archive/2005/08/08/SSIS-Nugget_3A00_-Get-error-descriptions.aspx)
Enhanced Error Transform (adds the name of the column in which the error occurred):
(http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons/archive/2005/09/21/637.aspx)
-Jamie
|||Yep, sorry, try using an OLE DB destination instead.
SQL Server destinations are an "in-memory" hook to SQL Server. It is a strongly typed destination and requires that all fields are the correct data type and constraints have been met, etc...
|||Cool.. I will give it a rip. Thanks again.
|||Right on! And thank you for your help!Flat File Processing - Cannot get Error Output to Write
I cannot seem to get my flat file to write columns in error when inserting into a SQL table. I have tried a few examples from MS and did not get anything written to my flat file output. I have set the Source Error Output on this flat file and it uses a script task to created the error description and then write it to a Flat File Destination.
I am new to SSIS and have not had any formal training on it. However, I am very familiar with VS.Net/c# and SQL 2000 DTS - I need to get this working ASAP as there are 45 total flat files that need to be processed. Once I have this solved for one, the rest will follow suit.
If more details would help, I can provide them.
Kind Regards,
Ron
Yep, please provide more details. Any error messages? What doesn't work, exactly?|||I'm confused about what you're trying to do. Can you try the description again?|||
Well, I have my flat file source and my SQL server destination. One flat file represents a table and the SQL destination represents one table. The columns are all mapped one-to-one exactly. I had to modify the flat file source data types to get rid of the data type errors. When I run the package, this task fails because of a datatype error. One of the datetime fields is not valid. The flat file that I am having troubles with has 145 columns and about 25000 rows. I have 45 total flat files I need to process. The one that I am having troubles with and would like to log the errors for, is the longest in terms of columns.
Currently, I have the Error Output going to a Script Component that has an output column for Error Description. Under this I have the Flat File Destination that I would like to write the error to. I have tested with a smaller flat file and I manually corrupted the file so it would fail, but this still did not write any error output.
I honestly did not think that what I was doing with SSIS was going to be this challenging, but I was wrong. The high-level overview of what I am ultimately trying to do is process 45 flat files into a SQL DB with 45 tables. The field names in both source and destination are the same. We would eventually like to add some process logging and other check points, but we have to get this proof of concept going first.
Hope this helps a bit more.
|||
Well, I have my flat file source and my SQL server destination. One flat file represents a table and the SQL destination represents one table. The columns are all mapped one-to-one exactly. I had to modify the flat file source data types to get rid of the data type errors. When I run the package, this task fails because of a datatype error. One of the datetime fields is not valid. The flat file that I am having troubles with has 145 columns and about 25000 rows. I have 45 total flat files I need to process. The one that I am having troubles with and would like to log the errors for, is the longest in terms of columns.
Currently, I have the Error Output going to a Script Component that has an output column for Error Description. Under this I have the Flat File Destination that I would like to write the error to. I have tested with a smaller flat file and I manually corrupted the file so it would fail, but this still did not write any error output.
I honestly did not think that what I was doing with SSIS was going to be this challenging, but I was wrong. The high-level overview of what I am ultimately trying to do is process 45 flat files into a SQL DB with 45 tables. The field names in both source and destination are the same. We would eventually like to add some process logging and other check points, but we have to get this proof of concept going first.
Hope this helps a bit more.
In the error output area of the Source Adapter, have you made sure that Redirect Row is set on all the appropriate choices (Error and Truncation for each column)?
|||Yes sir.|||So what I have is this:Flat File Source --> SQL Server Destination
After this fails (the SQL Server Destination is Red while the Flat File Source is green) I look at the Execution Results and I see that the SQL Server Destination had a conversion issue - (Error converting data type DBTYPE_DBTIMESTAMP to datetime)
Unfortunately, there are roughly 20 datetime columns in this table - 145 total columns - so I have no idea which column in which row is failing.
I would like to capture each row (row ID) and column that is failing so I can log it and reject the file. I have tried adding a script task and using the Error Output from the Flat File Source, but I don't even know if this is the correct place. I am sure the file structure looks just fine to SSIS, it's when SQL tries to insert the data that the DT conversion fails.
Suggestions?|||
Redirect errors from the SQL Server destination.
|||That is what I WANT to do, but did not think that was possible - there is no Red arrow for error output on the SQL Destincation Data Flow Component... DId I mention that I was new to SSIS? Sorry.
|||Ron,
Some stuff here that may help:
Get error descriptions
(http://blogs.conchango.com/jamiethomson/archive/2005/08/08/SSIS-Nugget_3A00_-Get-error-descriptions.aspx)
Enhanced Error Transform (adds the name of the column in which the error occurred):
(http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons/archive/2005/09/21/637.aspx)
-Jamie
|||Yep, sorry, try using an OLE DB destination instead.
SQL Server destinations are an "in-memory" hook to SQL Server. It is a strongly typed destination and requires that all fields are the correct data type and constraints have been met, etc...
|||Cool.. I will give it a rip. Thanks again.
|||Right on! And thank you for your help!sqlFlat File loading issue
While loading the flat file into sql server2005 using SSIS , i am getting error like:
[Source - 20070801PensionPayments_dat [1]] Error: The "output column "Status" (246)" failed because truncation occurred, and the truncation
row disposition on "output column "Status" (246)" specifies failure on truncation. A truncation error occurred on the specified object of
the specified component.
In the EM import wizard, i can see last column [][](blank space similar box type). because of that i unable to load data into table. The delimiter is fixed width.
Please help me - Thanks in Advance.
You need to make the column big enough to capture the data in the source file, before trying to get rid of spaces.Adjust your flat file source to give that column enough length to capture the data.
Then you can use a derived column to remove spaces from that field.|||
The Source file table name is :
Sample data like , only first name has value remaining columns blanks using of nchar data type.
While extrating the data , i am using Fixed width --> delimiter,even though last column giving problem
Ex:
MARIANN|||Your flat file mapping is not correct. There is more data coming in via the file than the source is set to handle. Fix that first.Flat file destination could not be loaded
Hi,
I have created a package and when i was trying to configure a flat file destination, i am getting the following error:
===================================
The component could not be added to the Data Flow task.
Could not initialize the component. There is a potential problem in the ProvideComponentProperties method. (Microsoft Visual Studio)
===================================
Error at Extract Test Flat File [DTS.Pipeline]: The module containing "component "" (245)" cannot be located, even though it is registered.
===================================
Exception from HRESULT: 0xC0048021 (Microsoft.SqlServer.DTSPipelineWrap)
Program Location:
at Microsoft.SqlServer.Dts.Pipeline.Wrapper.CManagedComponentWrapperClass.ProvideComponentProperties()
at Microsoft.DataTransformationServices.Design.PipelineTaskDesigner.AddNewComponent(String clsid, Boolean throwOnError)
Please advise.
Thanks & Regards,
Deepak
Was it working before? If yes, what has changed in the meantime?
Thanks,
Bob
Flat file destination could not be loaded
Hi,
I have created a package and when i was trying to configure a flat file destination, i am getting the following error:
===================================
The component could not be added to the Data Flow task.
Could not initialize the component. There is a potential problem in the ProvideComponentProperties method. (Microsoft Visual Studio)
===================================
Error at Extract Test Flat File [DTS.Pipeline]: The module containing "component "" (245)" cannot be located, even though it is registered.
===================================
Exception from HRESULT: 0xC0048021 (Microsoft.SqlServer.DTSPipelineWrap)
Program Location:
at Microsoft.SqlServer.Dts.Pipeline.Wrapper.CManagedComponentWrapperClass.ProvideComponentProperties()
at Microsoft.DataTransformationServices.Design.PipelineTaskDesigner.AddNewComponent(String clsid, Boolean throwOnError)
Please advise.
Thanks & Regards,
Deepak
Was it working before? If yes, what has changed in the meantime?
Thanks,
Bob
2012年3月21日星期三
flat file as source
Hello Ereryone,
I have Flat File as my source. Before i tried to load the data in to ORACLE Destination thru SCD component the error was with ole db.
any ways i try to load the data in Access DB but I’m getting different error in same component (OLE DB) After SCD Component. can any one help me out in this.
thank you
What exactly is your problem? We would need more information to help you out...
What errors are you getting, what transforms are you using, have you looked at the data directly before your destination, if so does it seem to be in order, do you have any column type mismatches, etc.
2012年3月19日星期一
fixing orphan users
Hi All,
I'm trying to fix all the orphans users for all the databases in my sql
server 2000 using the code above, but I'm getting an error that the second
cursor already exist.
Can I do a cursor inside another one?
How can I fix this problem?
Any ideas?
Tks in advance
JFB
DECLARE @.DBName sysname
,@.DBStatus int
,@.dbid int
,@.TempDBName nvarchar(70)
SELECT @.DBName = '*'
SELECT @.TempDBName = ' '
DECLARE DBs CURSOR FOR
SELECT name, dbid, status, name
FROM master..sysdatabases
WHERE [name] <> 'tempdb'
and [name] <> 'master'
and [name] <> 'model'
FOR READ ONLY
OPEN DBs
FETCH NEXT FROM DBs INTO @.DBName, @.dbid, @.DBStatus, @.TempDBName
WHILE @.@.FETCH_STATUS = 0
BEGIN
Print @.TempDBName
DECLARE @.tempString nvarchar(255)
SELECT @.tempString = 'USE ' + @.TempDBName +'
DECLARE @.UserName nvarchar(50)
DECLARE orphanuser_cur cursor for
SELECT UserName = name
FROM sysusers
WHERE issqluser = 1 and (sid is not null and sid <> 0x0) and
suser_sname(sid) is null
ORDER BY name
OPEN orphanuser_cur
FETCH NEXT FROM orphanuser_cur INTO @.UserName
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status = 0)
BEGIN
PRINT @.UserName '' user name being resynced''
EXEC sp_change_users_login ''Update_one'', @.UserName, @.UserName
FETCH NEXT FROM orphanuser_cur INTO @.UserName
END
CLOSE orphanuser_cur
DEALLOCATE orphanuser_cur'
EXEC (@.tempString)
FETCH NEXT FROM DBs INTO @.DBName, @.dbid, @.DBStatus, @.TempDBName
END
CLOSE DBs
DEALLOCATE DBsOn Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>I'm trying to fix all the orphans users for all the databases in my sql
>server 2000 using the code above, but I'm getting an error that the second
>cursor already exist.
>Can I do a cursor inside another one?
>How can I fix this problem?
>Any ideas?
Hi JFB,
The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
EXEC (@.tempString)
to
PRINT @.tempString
and inspect the results.
If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> PRINT @.UserName '' user name being resynced''
This should be changed to
PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Yes Hugo, Tks for you reply and help.
I got those problems...
Rgds
JFB
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:f8v9115l8464ppt54s56bo45knisli5l3u@.
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>
> Hi JFB,
> The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
> EXEC (@.tempString)
> to
> PRINT @.tempString
> and inspect the results.
> If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
> exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
> Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> This should be changed to
> PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Yes Hugo, Tks for you reply and help.
I got those problems...
Rgds
JFB
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:f8v9115l8464ppt54s56bo45knisli5l3u@.
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>
> Hi JFB,
> The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
> EXEC (@.tempString)
> to
> PRINT @.tempString
> and inspect the results.
> If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
> exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
> Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> This should be changed to
> PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
I'm trying to fix all the orphans users for all the databases in my sql
server 2000 using the code above, but I'm getting an error that the second
cursor already exist.
Can I do a cursor inside another one?
How can I fix this problem?
Any ideas?
Tks in advance
JFB
DECLARE @.DBName sysname
,@.DBStatus int
,@.dbid int
,@.TempDBName nvarchar(70)
SELECT @.DBName = '*'
SELECT @.TempDBName = ' '
DECLARE DBs CURSOR FOR
SELECT name, dbid, status, name
FROM master..sysdatabases
WHERE [name] <> 'tempdb'
and [name] <> 'master'
and [name] <> 'model'
FOR READ ONLY
OPEN DBs
FETCH NEXT FROM DBs INTO @.DBName, @.dbid, @.DBStatus, @.TempDBName
WHILE @.@.FETCH_STATUS = 0
BEGIN
Print @.TempDBName
DECLARE @.tempString nvarchar(255)
SELECT @.tempString = 'USE ' + @.TempDBName +'
DECLARE @.UserName nvarchar(50)
DECLARE orphanuser_cur cursor for
SELECT UserName = name
FROM sysusers
WHERE issqluser = 1 and (sid is not null and sid <> 0x0) and
suser_sname(sid) is null
ORDER BY name
OPEN orphanuser_cur
FETCH NEXT FROM orphanuser_cur INTO @.UserName
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status = 0)
BEGIN
PRINT @.UserName '' user name being resynced''
EXEC sp_change_users_login ''Update_one'', @.UserName, @.UserName
FETCH NEXT FROM orphanuser_cur INTO @.UserName
END
CLOSE orphanuser_cur
DEALLOCATE orphanuser_cur'
EXEC (@.tempString)
FETCH NEXT FROM DBs INTO @.DBName, @.dbid, @.DBStatus, @.TempDBName
END
CLOSE DBs
DEALLOCATE DBsOn Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>I'm trying to fix all the orphans users for all the databases in my sql
>server 2000 using the code above, but I'm getting an error that the second
>cursor already exist.
>Can I do a cursor inside another one?
>How can I fix this problem?
>Any ideas?
Hi JFB,
The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
EXEC (@.tempString)
to
PRINT @.tempString
and inspect the results.
If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> PRINT @.UserName '' user name being resynced''
This should be changed to
PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Yes Hugo, Tks for you reply and help.
I got those problems...
Rgds
JFB
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:f8v9115l8464ppt54s56bo45knisli5l3u@.
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>
> Hi JFB,
> The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
> EXEC (@.tempString)
> to
> PRINT @.tempString
> and inspect the results.
> If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
> exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
> Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> This should be changed to
> PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Yes Hugo, Tks for you reply and help.
I got those problems...
Rgds
JFB
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:f8v9115l8464ppt54s56bo45knisli5l3u@.
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:06:32 -0500, JFB wrote:
>
> Hi JFB,
> The first thing to do when troubleshooting dynamic SQL is to change
> EXEC (@.tempString)
> to
> PRINT @.tempString
> and inspect the results.
> If you do that, you'll instantly note that the length of your dynamic SQL
> exceeds the 255 character you used in the declaration of @.tempString.
> Another problem you'll find after fixing this one is here:
> This should be changed to
> PRINT @.UserName + '' user name being resynced''
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Fixing consistency of a MDF file (when detached)
I have a DB that has a torn page error, error 823, and is detached. It
fails when reattaching because of the torn page error. Is there a way to
fix the MDF file when the corresponding DB is not attached to the SQL
server?
Thanks in advance
--
brandyg@.online.microsoft.com [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.AFAIK there is nothing published in public. The best thing you can do is to
contact the PSS.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Brandy Griffin [MSFT]" <brandyg@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O4UtMIIWDHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a DB that has a torn page error, error 823, and is detached. It
> fails when reattaching because of the torn page error. Is there a way to
> fix the MDF file when the corresponding DB is not attached to the SQL
> server?
> Thanks in advance
> --
> brandyg@.online.microsoft.com [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
>
>
fails when reattaching because of the torn page error. Is there a way to
fix the MDF file when the corresponding DB is not attached to the SQL
server?
Thanks in advance
--
brandyg@.online.microsoft.com [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.AFAIK there is nothing published in public. The best thing you can do is to
contact the PSS.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Brandy Griffin [MSFT]" <brandyg@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O4UtMIIWDHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a DB that has a torn page error, error 823, and is detached. It
> fails when reattaching because of the torn page error. Is there a way to
> fix the MDF file when the corresponding DB is not attached to the SQL
> server?
> Thanks in advance
> --
> brandyg@.online.microsoft.com [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
>
>
2012年3月11日星期日
Fixed Header Error
I get the error:
[rsInvalidFixedTableColumnHeaderSpacing] The table â'table1â' includes
improperly placed columns with FixedHeader set to true. These columns must
be side-by-side, must start with either the left-most or right-most table
column, and cannot be applied to all columns on the table.
I've tried changing the table property "Fixed Header" to False, but this
does not fix the error. This property only seems to be available for the
table and not the columns, so there seems to be no other way to fix this.
HELP!
--
Systems AnalystSelect and set fixedHeader=false for all columns one by one on the report.
Save your report. Now Start from begining or end of the columns, set
fixedHeader=true one by one sequentially, but not for all. Hope report will
work.
"schmidtkaren" wrote:
> I get the error:
> [rsInvalidFixedTableColumnHeaderSpacing] The table â'table1â' includes
> improperly placed columns with FixedHeader set to true. These columns must
> be side-by-side, must start with either the left-most or right-most table
> column, and cannot be applied to all columns on the table.
> I've tried changing the table property "Fixed Header" to False, but this
> does not fix the error. This property only seems to be available for the
> table and not the columns, so there seems to be no other way to fix this.
> HELP!
> --
> Systems Analyst
[rsInvalidFixedTableColumnHeaderSpacing] The table â'table1â' includes
improperly placed columns with FixedHeader set to true. These columns must
be side-by-side, must start with either the left-most or right-most table
column, and cannot be applied to all columns on the table.
I've tried changing the table property "Fixed Header" to False, but this
does not fix the error. This property only seems to be available for the
table and not the columns, so there seems to be no other way to fix this.
HELP!
--
Systems AnalystSelect and set fixedHeader=false for all columns one by one on the report.
Save your report. Now Start from begining or end of the columns, set
fixedHeader=true one by one sequentially, but not for all. Hope report will
work.
"schmidtkaren" wrote:
> I get the error:
> [rsInvalidFixedTableColumnHeaderSpacing] The table â'table1â' includes
> improperly placed columns with FixedHeader set to true. These columns must
> be side-by-side, must start with either the left-most or right-most table
> column, and cannot be applied to all columns on the table.
> I've tried changing the table property "Fixed Header" to False, but this
> does not fix the error. This property only seems to be available for the
> table and not the columns, so there seems to be no other way to fix this.
> HELP!
> --
> Systems Analyst
订阅：
博文 (Atom)