float and money Data conversion between ado com and ado dotnet not the same with sqlserve

I am running the same query through the traditional ado com interface and
through dotnet ado. The query is a FOR XML EXPLICIT and in ado com I am
using the streaming capability to retrieve the xml and in dotnet the
ExecuteXmlreader command.
The result for ado com is :
<results><motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000"
model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1000" .....
The result for ado .net and in sql analyzer is :
<motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000.0000" model="25089700"
cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1.000000000000000e+003".....
It is clear that the money fields(sum..insured) and float fields(capacity)
gets converted(implicitly by SQL?) in different ways.
Does anyone know why it is not the same and how to get it the same?
This is most likely an artefact of the XML serialization of the typed values
being done differently by the two providers (for some providers and FOR XML
queries, we are sending binary data over that then gets converted to strings
in the providers).
The ADO.Net serialization is consistent with the server-side serialization:
select cast(1000 as float) as x for XML raw, type
select Cast((select cast(1000 as float) as x for XML raw, type) as
nvarchar(max))
Note that management studio also uses ADO.Net.
If this is problematic, please let me know. Note that I am not sure however,
that we can change it now...
Best regards
Michael
"Eben" <eben@.fspsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:eGKV5vF5FHA.1956@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I am running the same query through the traditional ado com interface and
>through dotnet ado. The query is a FOR XML EXPLICIT and in ado com I am
>using the streaming capability to retrieve the xml and in dotnet the
>ExecuteXmlreader command.
> The result for ado com is :
> <results><motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000"
> model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1000" .....
> The result for ado .net and in sql analyzer is :
> <motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000.0000"
> model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546"
> capacity="1.000000000000000e+003".....
> It is clear that the money fields(sum..insured) and float fields(capacity)
> gets converted(implicitly by SQL?) in different ways.
>
> Does anyone know why it is not the same and how to get it the same?
>

float and money Data conversion between ado com and ado dotnet not the same with sql

I am running the same query through the traditional ado com interface and
through dotnet ado. The query is a FOR XML EXPLICIT and in ado com I am
using the streaming capability to retrieve the xml and in dotnet the
ExecuteXmlreader command.
The result for ado com is :
<results><motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000"
model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1000" .....
The result for ado .net and in sql analyzer is :
<motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000.0000" model="25089700"
cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1.000000000000000e+003".....
It is clear that the money fields(sum..insured) and float fields(capacity)
gets converted(implicitly by SQL?) in different ways.
Does anyone know why it is not the same and how to get it the same?This is most likely an artefact of the XML serialization of the typed values
being done differently by the two providers (for some providers and FOR XML
queries, we are sending binary data over that then gets converted to strings
in the providers).
The ADO.Net serialization is consistent with the server-side serialization:
select cast(1000 as float) as x for XML raw, type
select Cast((select cast(1000 as float) as x for XML raw, type) as
nvarchar(max))
Note that management studio also uses ADO.Net.
If this is problematic, please let me know. Note that I am not sure however,
that we can change it now...
Best regards
Michael
"Eben" <eben@.fspsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:eGKV5vF5FHA.1956@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I am running the same query through the traditional ado com interface and
>through dotnet ado. The query is a FOR XML EXPLICIT and in ado com I am
>using the streaming capability to retrieve the xml and in dotnet the
>ExecuteXmlreader command.
> The result for ado com is :
> <results><motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000"
> model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546" capacity="1000" .....
> The result for ado .net and in sql analyzer is :
> <motor.cycle id="177496" ver="1" sum.insured="100000.0000"
> model="25089700" cover.type.id="0" make="546"
> capacity="1.000000000000000e+003".....
> It is clear that the money fields(sum..insured) and float fields(capacity)
> gets converted(implicitly by SQL?) in different ways.
>
> Does anyone know why it is not the same and how to get it the same?
>

First Hit to SQL Reporting Services - Slow Response Time

The first time each day that a user accesses SQL Reporting Services 2005, it
takes up to 3 minutes to load the SQL Reporting web interface. After the
first hit, it loads much faster. Is there a way to speed up the intial load?This is an IIS issue. After a certain time it unloads RS. Note that as far
as IIS is concerned RS is just another asp.net application.
Go to IIS Manager, under Applocation Pools node, right click
"DefaultAppPool" in which the Reporting Server work process is running,
select properties. On "Performace" tag, you will see, by default, the app
pool will shut down if > being idle for 20 min. You can extend this time to
8x60min 480min, so that the app pool will not shut down for a regular
working day. However, the first report reader of the day, will hit the
delay. You may schedule a dummy report at beginning of a work day for this.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Chili86@.discussions.microsoft.com"
<Chili86@.discussions.microsoft.com@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:26DF80C2-7E46-4A7F-AEA1-57E36697D155@.microsoft.com...
> The first time each day that a user accesses SQL Reporting Services 2005,
> it
> takes up to 3 minutes to load the SQL Reporting web interface. After the
> first hit, it loads much faster. Is there a way to speed up the intial
> load?

First connection fails through Access

I am accessing a linked server through a VPN connection. I am updating
through an Access interface. The first time that I perform an update
on the linked server table, I get an update on linked table error. The
new transaction could not enlist in the specified transaction...
After I click OK, I have update and add records with no errors. Is
there a way that I can trap for this error or avoid it all together?Hi
This sounds like a delay introduced by the VPN means it takes longer to
connect first time through. You may want to try forcing a connection earlier
before you try to update. Also check any VPN settings such as timeouts or
keep alive to see if changing them helps.
John
"dgall" wrote:

> I am accessing a linked server through a VPN connection. I am updating
> through an Access interface. The first time that I perform an update
> on the linked server table, I get an update on linked table error. The
> new transaction could not enlist in the specified transaction...
> After I click OK, I have update and add records with no errors. Is
> there a way that I can trap for this error or avoid it all together?
>

First connection fails through Access

I am accessing a linked server through a VPN connection. I am updating
through an Access interface. The first time that I perform an update
on the linked server table, I get an update on linked table error. The
new transaction could not enlist in the specified transaction...
After I click OK, I have update and add records with no errors. Is
there a way that I can trap for this error or avoid it all together?Hi
This sounds like a delay introduced by the VPN means it takes longer to
connect first time through. You may want to try forcing a connection earlier
before you try to update. Also check any VPN settings such as timeouts or
keep alive to see if changing them helps.
John
"dgall" wrote:
> I am accessing a linked server through a VPN connection. I am updating
> through an Access interface. The first time that I perform an update
> on the linked server table, I get an update on linked table error. The
> new transaction could not enlist in the specified transaction...
> After I click OK, I have update and add records with no errors. Is
> there a way that I can trap for this error or avoid it all together?
>

Firefox and IE 7 access to Web SQL Server Reports

Why are there problems with using FireFox and IE 7 with accessing the Web
interface for SQL 2005 Reports? I know that the Frame is the issue for
FireFox (is there an easy way to fix this') but I am running into problems
where IE7 just crashes when it connects to SQL Server Reporting Services.
Any ideas?
--
Matthew David
PH: 920.475.2972
FAX: 775.239.8171
mdavid@.matthewdavid.ws
New Books at http://www.cafepress.com/matthewdavid on Flash Rich Internet
ApplicationsI am running into this same problem. IE 7 with SQL Server Reports
shows the wrong information (none) and the frame is messed up.|||I am not having these issues at all and I'm running IE 7.
Can you tell me where it is crashing?
=-Chris
"Matthew David" <mdavid@.matthewdavid.ws> wrote in message
news:%23lhEq%23c%23GHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Why are there problems with using FireFox and IE 7 with accessing the Web
> interface for SQL 2005 Reports? I know that the Frame is the issue for
> FireFox (is there an easy way to fix this') but I am running into
> problems
> where IE7 just crashes when it connects to SQL Server Reporting Services.
> Any ideas?
> --
> Matthew David
> PH: 920.475.2972
> FAX: 775.239.8171
> mdavid@.matthewdavid.ws
> New Books at http://www.cafepress.com/matthewdavid on Flash Rich Internet
> Applications
>