Consider the following:
TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the other
hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows for
c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution plan.
Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so that
I get the best execution plan for each call.
If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
(doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
(since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
either).
Any ideas would be appreciated.
I have a UDF in which I would like to force a recompile based on the value
of one of the parameters. It seems that when the UDF is first executed, if
it is passed a value that has a it performs
Within the UDF is a select from
"TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Consider the following:
> TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
> that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
other
> hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
for
> c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
plan.
> Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
that
> I get the best execution plan for each call.
> If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> either).
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
Here are your options:
1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
-The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on c2,
thus covering your query.
2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between two
hinted queries.
3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
David
David
|||Can you wrap the query in the UDF inside sp_executesql? If so, do not use
any parameters to sp_executesql, put the entire query in the query string>
that way each different value for c2 will have a different plan.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uah$MMeEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
c2
> other
> for
> plan.
> that
>
> I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
> Here are your options:
> 1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
> -The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on
c2,
> thus covering your query.
> 2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between
two
> hinted queries.
> 3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
> David
>
> David
>
2012年3月19日星期一
Any way to force a recompile on a statement within a User Defined Function?
Consider the following:
TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the other
hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows for
c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution plan.
Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so that
I get the best execution plan for each call.
If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
(doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
(since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
either).
Any ideas would be appreciated.
I have a UDF in which I would like to force a recompile based on the value
of one of the parameters. It seems that when the UDF is first executed, if
it is passed a value that has a it performs
Within the UDF is a select from"TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Consider the following:
> TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
> that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
other
> hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
for
> c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
plan.
> Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
that
> I get the best execution plan for each call.
> If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> either).
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
Here are your options:
1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
-The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on c2,
thus covering your query.
2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between two
hinted queries.
3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
David
David|||Can you wrap the query in the UDF inside sp_executesql? If so, do not use
any parameters to sp_executesql, put the entire query in the query string>
that way each different value for c2 will have a different plan.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uah$MMeEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> > There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> >
> > The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> > select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> >
> > TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column
c2
> > that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> > passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
> other
> > hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
> for
> > c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> >
> > The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> > high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> > clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
> plan.
> > Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
> that
> > I get the best execution plan for each call.
> >
> > If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> > (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> > (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> > either).
> >
> > Any ideas would be appreciated.
> >
>
> I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
> Here are your options:
> 1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
> -The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on
c2,
> thus covering your query.
> 2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between
two
> hinted queries.
> 3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
> David
>
> David
>
TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the other
hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows for
c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution plan.
Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so that
I get the best execution plan for each call.
If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
(doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
(since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
either).
Any ideas would be appreciated.
I have a UDF in which I would like to force a recompile based on the value
of one of the parameters. It seems that when the UDF is first executed, if
it is passed a value that has a it performs
Within the UDF is a select from"TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Consider the following:
> TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
> that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
other
> hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
for
> c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
plan.
> Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
that
> I get the best execution plan for each call.
> If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> either).
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
Here are your options:
1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
-The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on c2,
thus covering your query.
2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between two
hinted queries.
3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
David
David|||Can you wrap the query in the UDF inside sp_executesql? If so, do not use
any parameters to sp_executesql, put the entire query in the query string>
that way each different value for c2 will have a different plan.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uah$MMeEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> > There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> >
> > The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> > select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> >
> > TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column
c2
> > that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> > passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
> other
> > hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
> for
> > c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> >
> > The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> > high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> > clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
> plan.
> > Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
> that
> > I get the best execution plan for each call.
> >
> > If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> > (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> > (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> > either).
> >
> > Any ideas would be appreciated.
> >
>
> I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
> Here are your options:
> 1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
> -The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on
c2,
> thus covering your query.
> 2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between
two
> hinted queries.
> 3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
> David
>
> David
>
Any way to force a recompile on a statement within a User Defined Function?
Consider the following:
TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the other
hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows for
c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution plan.
Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so that
I get the best execution plan for each call.
If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
(doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
(since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
either).
Any ideas would be appreciated.
I have a UDF in which I would like to force a recompile based on the value
of one of the parameters. It seems that when the UDF is first executed, if
it is passed a value that has a it performs
Within the UDF is a select from"TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Consider the following:
> TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
> that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
other
> hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
for
> c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
plan.
> Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
that
> I get the best execution plan for each call.
> If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> either).
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
Here are your options:
1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
-The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on c2,
thus covering your query.
2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between two
hinted queries.
3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
David
David|||Can you wrap the query in the UDF inside sp_executesql? If so, do not use
any parameters to sp_executesql, put the entire query in the query string>
that way each different value for c2 will have a different plan.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uah$MMeEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
c2[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
> for
> plan.
> that
>
> I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
> Here are your options:
> 1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
> -The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on
c2,
> thus covering your query.
> 2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between
two
> hinted queries.
> 3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
> David
>
> David
>
TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the other
hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows for
c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution plan.
Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so that
I get the best execution plan for each call.
If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
(doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
(since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
either).
Any ideas would be appreciated.
I have a UDF in which I would like to force a recompile based on the value
of one of the parameters. It seems that when the UDF is first executed, if
it is passed a value that has a it performs
Within the UDF is a select from"TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Consider the following:
> TableA (c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 int, c5 varchar(80, etc...)
> There is a clustered index on (c1, c3), nonclustered index on (c2)
> The UDF contains a SELECT statement of the form:
> select c1 from TableA where c2 = @.InputParm
> TableA contains about 300000 rows and there are some values for column c2
> that have a cardinality of over 30000. So obviously if this value gets
> passed into the UDF, a Clustered Index Scan is probably best. On the
other
> hand if a parm gets passed for a value that has a few corresponding rows
for
> c2 then it is best that the nonclustered index on c2 be used.
> The problem is that when the UDF is first invoked with a parm that has a
> high number of corresponding rows for c2, the execution plan uses a
> clustered index SCAN and all subsuquent calls use this same execution
plan.
> Ideally I would like to have this UDF defined to recompile each call so
that
> I get the best execution plan for each call.
> If this were a Stored Proc - I would either define it "WITH RECOMPILE"
> (doesn't appear to be valid for functions), or I would use dynamic SQL
> (since Functions cannot access temp tables I cannot use this approach
> either).
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
Here are your options:
1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
-The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on c2,
thus covering your query.
2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between two
hinted queries.
3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
David
David|||Can you wrap the query in the UDF inside sp_executesql? If so, do not use
any parameters to sp_executesql, put the entire query in the query string>
that way each different value for c2 will have a different plan.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23uah$MMeEHA.3016@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "TJTODD" <tjtodd@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:O7J6bCLeEHA.712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
c2[vbcol=seagreen]
> other
> for
> plan.
> that
>
> I don't think there's any way to get the function to recompile.
> Here are your options:
> 1. Change the indexing scheme so a single plan is appropriate.
> -The obvious candidate here is to add c1 to the nonclustered index on
c2,
> thus covering your query.
> 2. Examine the cardinality inside the stored function and switch between
two
> hinted queries.
> 3. Rewrite the function as a join and use dynamic SQL.
> David
>
> David
>
2012年2月23日星期四
Any Idea's on this !
Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
basically like this..
The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to put
into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking on
storing in HTML format).
For eg Letter template would be like
To,
<Name>
<Address1>
Hello <Name>
Thank you
Regards,
<MyName>
<MyPhone>
When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this Template,then
we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all the
selected user clients by the user.
Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
Thank uUnfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification, formatting,
etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
> Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
> basically like this..
> The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to
> put
> into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking
> on
> storing in HTML format).
> For eg Letter template would be like
> To,
> <Name>
> <Address1>
> Hello <Name>
> Thank you
> Regards,
> <MyName>
> <MyPhone>
> When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
> Template,then
> we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all
> the
> selected user clients by the user.
> Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
> Thank u
>|||Thanks for the reply !!
Well i am ready to give up on Rich text formatting here...but how can I
actually achieve the working of such templates as letters.How can i do this
with RS.
Is Inner Html supported in RS.
Thank u
"Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
> planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification, formatting,
> etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
> --
> Brian Welcker
> Group Program Manager
> SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
> > Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
> > basically like this..
> > The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to
> > put
> > into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking
> > on
> > storing in HTML format).
> > For eg Letter template would be like
> >
> > To,
> > <Name>
> > <Address1>
> >
> > Hello <Name>
> > Thank you
> >
> > Regards,
> > <MyName>
> > <MyPhone>
> >
> > When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
> > Template,then
> > we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all
> > the
> > selected user clients by the user.
> > Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
> >
> > Thank u
> >
> >
>
>|||You can't - embedded HTML is part of the rich text feature that was cut. If
you think about it, since we support multiple output format, we would have
to parse the HTML and represent it in other formats (Excel, PDF, etc.)
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8F014D9-7D93-4BFA-97CB-A1F990BADA83@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the reply !!
> Well i am ready to give up on Rich text formatting here...but how can I
> actually achieve the working of such templates as letters.How can i do
> this
> with RS.
> Is Inner Html supported in RS.
> Thank u
>
> "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
>> planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification,
>> formatting,
>> etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
>> --
>> Brian Welcker
>> Group Program Manager
>> SQL Server Reporting Services
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> "Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
>> > basically like this..
>> > The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them
>> > to
>> > put
>> > into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now
>> > thinking
>> > on
>> > storing in HTML format).
>> > For eg Letter template would be like
>> >
>> > To,
>> > <Name>
>> > <Address1>
>> >
>> > Hello <Name>
>> > Thank you
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > <MyName>
>> > <MyPhone>
>> >
>> > When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
>> > Template,then
>> > we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for
>> > all
>> > the
>> > selected user clients by the user.
>> > Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
>> >
>> > Thank u
>> >
>> >
>>
basically like this..
The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to put
into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking on
storing in HTML format).
For eg Letter template would be like
To,
<Name>
<Address1>
Hello <Name>
Thank you
Regards,
<MyName>
<MyPhone>
When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this Template,then
we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all the
selected user clients by the user.
Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
Thank uUnfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification, formatting,
etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
> Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
> basically like this..
> The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to
> put
> into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking
> on
> storing in HTML format).
> For eg Letter template would be like
> To,
> <Name>
> <Address1>
> Hello <Name>
> Thank you
> Regards,
> <MyName>
> <MyPhone>
> When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
> Template,then
> we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all
> the
> selected user clients by the user.
> Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
> Thank u
>|||Thanks for the reply !!
Well i am ready to give up on Rich text formatting here...but how can I
actually achieve the working of such templates as letters.How can i do this
with RS.
Is Inner Html supported in RS.
Thank u
"Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
> planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification, formatting,
> etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
> --
> Brian Welcker
> Group Program Manager
> SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
> > Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
> > basically like this..
> > The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them to
> > put
> > into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now thinking
> > on
> > storing in HTML format).
> > For eg Letter template would be like
> >
> > To,
> > <Name>
> > <Address1>
> >
> > Hello <Name>
> > Thank you
> >
> > Regards,
> > <MyName>
> > <MyPhone>
> >
> > When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
> > Template,then
> > we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for all
> > the
> > selected user clients by the user.
> > Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
> >
> > Thank u
> >
> >
>
>|||You can't - embedded HTML is part of the rich text feature that was cut. If
you think about it, since we support multiple output format, we would have
to parse the HTML and represent it in other formats (Excel, PDF, etc.)
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8F014D9-7D93-4BFA-97CB-A1F990BADA83@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the reply !!
> Well i am ready to give up on Rich text formatting here...but how can I
> actually achieve the working of such templates as letters.How can i do
> this
> with RS.
> Is Inner Html supported in RS.
> Thank u
>
> "Brian Welcker [MSFT]" wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this is not really supported in Reporting Services. We had
>> planned to add support for rich text (paragraphs, justification,
>> formatting,
>> etc.) in SQL 2005 but ran out of time.
>> --
>> Brian Welcker
>> Group Program Manager
>> SQL Server Reporting Services
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> "Sunny" <Sunny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:B8306DA0-C272-43F1-8151-4B380F85199B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Well I have to implement Mail Merge ...user defined Letters in short...
>> > basically like this..
>> > The user can enter any custom letter with Fields we will provide them
>> > to
>> > put
>> > into the letter ...We will them store this in database(right now
>> > thinking
>> > on
>> > storing in HTML format).
>> > For eg Letter template would be like
>> >
>> > To,
>> > <Name>
>> > <Address1>
>> >
>> > Hello <Name>
>> > Thank you
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > <MyName>
>> > <MyPhone>
>> >
>> > When the user then selects to generate a letter selecting this
>> > Template,then
>> > we need to subsitute appropriate fields and generate the letters for
>> > all
>> > the
>> > selected user clients by the user.
>> > Please how can i achieve this with RS...any suggestions welcomed...
>> >
>> > Thank u
>> >
>> >
>>
Any IDE for developing Soterd Procedures and User Defined Functions
hi there:
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
Andrea
Hi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
Andrea
Hi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Any IDE for developing Soterd Procedures and User Defined Functions
hi there:
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
AndreaHi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
AndreaHi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
2012年2月18日星期六
Any IDE for developing Soterd Procedures and User Defined Functions
hi there:
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
AndreaHi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
I wonder is there any IDEs for developing Stored procedures and
probably user defined functions.
I heard about a few, but not for MS SQL server 2k so far,
I would really aprecaite the help
Regards
AndreaHi Andrea,
what do you mean by IDE ? QA is a great IDE to do your coding,
furtheron having Intellisense support within (from www.promptsql.com)
makes you IMHO very productive.
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
订阅：
博文 (Atom)