Anyone heard of product for sqls called MyDTS?

Who makes this? It's some sort of dts writer/scheduler I think.there is dts that comes with sqlserver. mydts sounds like someone's dts package.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mydts

Anyone else have problems with Sort/Merge in For Each loop?

Just wondering if I am an isolated case or just doing stuff other people don't. Ive created around a dozen packages for importing various types of data into a datawarehouse and some of the packages have random crashes. Over time I have been trying to tie together what the crashing ones have in common and now believe I have completely isolated it: Sort + Merge inside a dataflow in a for each loop. The more sorts and merges in the flow the more likely the problem is to occur.

This week I created 2 identical packages to import some XML... one used some gnarly complicated substrings and such to extract some data and add it as derived columns while the other used the XML correctly that produced 2 streams (one being meta data - other being detail data) and sorted + merged them. The gnarly substring package could run all night (processes about a file every 2 or 3 seconds so you can do the math) while the merged data flows crashes somewhere between 1 and 4 hrs of running - usually right around 3 hrs (also processes about 1 file every 2 seconds). The file it crashes on wil be completly random and not related to file size - I've had crashes on files with as little as 1 row of data and 1 row of metadata and as big as 1 row of metadata and 100,000+ rows of data. Another more complicated package I created has 4 merges (and thus 8 sorts) and it will crash anywhere between 5 minutes and 20 minutes of running.

The crash is usually one where the whole process just shuts down with a memory dump but occasionally I have gotten errors about out of memory or warnings about threads leaking buffers.

I am trying to do some "research" to see if others have this problem. I've spent 1.5 months writing all ETL jobs in SSIS and its gotten to the point management has asked me to explore other platforms. I do have a case open with Microsoft on the package with 4 merges - but we've spent weeks now just trying to get debugging tools to get them some useful info when the process crashes. I am running SP1 and kb91822.

Anyone else?

FYI to anyone that comes across this thread - msft identified a bug in the sort object (stack heap corruption) and now has a hotfix. If you run into this same situation please contact them (until the patch is released to the public)

Any third-party freebies to administer MSDE?

Are there any third party freebies available to administer MSDE? I'm looking
to replace Interbase with MSDE, but I'll need some sort of Query Analyzer /
Admin interface to replace IBConsole which is free with Interbase. Is
anything like this available?
Thanks for your help,
Joe Geretz
This link may help.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/partners/default.asp
Jim
"Joseph Geretz" <jgeretz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u91ZuEDGEHA.3856@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Are there any third party freebies available to administer MSDE? I'm
looking
> to replace Interbase with MSDE, but I'll need some sort of Query Analyzer
/
> Admin interface to replace IBConsole which is free with Interbase. Is
> anything like this available?
> Thanks for your help,
> Joe Geretz
>
|||http://www.aspfaq.com/2442
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Joseph Geretz" <jgeretz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u91ZuEDGEHA.3856@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Are there any third party freebies available to administer MSDE? I'm
> looking
> to replace Interbase with MSDE, but I'll need some sort of Query Analyzer
> /
> Admin interface to replace IBConsole which is free with Interbase. Is
> anything like this available?
> Thanks for your help,
> Joe Geretz
>
|||Joseph,

> Are there any third party freebies available to administer MSDE?
There aren't only 3rd party tools, have a look at MS Web Administrator:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
The only disadvantage I can see is the poor performance.
I have also tested DbaMgr (http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtm) and the free
version of myLittleAdmin (http://www.mylittletools.net/scripts/en/mla_sql/).
For having a quick look at your databases, myLittleAdmin is very good.
Bye,
mm

any order

Hi,
Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
select * from tablename
what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
any mystery?As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
whole information from BOL|||Wei
I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
index on this column)
"Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
> whole information from BOL
>

---

|||Hi ,
If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
"select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
index key order.
If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
the way you inserted.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>

---

|||records are sorted in ascending order by default.
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>

---

|||Sorry

quote:

---

> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)

---

I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
insertion.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Wei
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
>
> "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
get[QUOTE]
>

---

|||The first reply you made me shocked |||> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on

quote:

---

> the Index key.

---

Not necessarily. See my other post.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPL7gkW6DHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Hi ,
> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based o
n
> the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
> "select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustere
d
> index key order.
> If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
> the way you inserted.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>

---

|||> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on

quote:

---

> insertion.

---

Not correct. I'm afraid. See my other post.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message news:%23qCR2tW6DHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[Q
UOTE]
> Sorry
> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> get
>[/QUOTE]|||A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your ro
ws being notes on
paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to t
ime. Now. try to pull
the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make se
nse in the relational
model.
To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to re
turn the rows in any
order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read ab
out IAM page etc in the
physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you h
ave a clustered index or
not.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The index
can be heavy
fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and forth
on the disk, it will
scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

[color
=darkred]
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>[/color]

---

any order

Hi,
Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
select * from tablename
what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
any mystery?As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
whole information from BOL|||Wei
I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
index on this column)
"Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
> whole information from BOL
>|||Hi ,
If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
"select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
index key order.
If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
the way you inserted.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||records are sorted in ascending order by default.
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||Sorry
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
insertion.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Wei
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
>
> "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> > You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can
get
> > whole information from BOL
> >
> >
>|||The first reply you made me shocked :)|||Incorrect, I'm afraid. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"harsh" <harshalmistry@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RaX%23pW6DHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> records are sorted in ascending order by default.
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
> the Index key.
Not necessarily. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPL7gkW6DHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
> the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
> "select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
> index key order.
> If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
> the way you inserted.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
Not correct. I'm afraid. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message news:%23qCR2tW6DHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry
> > I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> > index on this column)
> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Wei
> > I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> > index on this column)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> > news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> > > You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can
> get
> > > whole information from BOL
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your rows being notes on
paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to time. Now. try to pull
the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
model.
To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to return the rows in any
order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read about IAM page etc in the
physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you have a clustered index or
not.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The index can be heavy
fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and forth on the disk, it will
scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||Tibor
I have just finished to read the article, you are absolutely right. Sorry
for giniven incorrect information.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
rows being notes on
> paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
time. Now. try to pull
> the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
sense in the relational
> model.
> To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
return the rows in any
> order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
about IAM page etc in the
> physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
have a clustered index or
> not.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
index can be heavy
> fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
forth on the disk, it will
> scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||Tibor.
Greate Poster, let me learn many thing.
I do not think you are right after you poster, but after read the
information on BOL. Yes you are right.|||>The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
> model.
I understand that the order and PHYSICAL placement of the data is not a
concern in the relational model but surely the RM addresses returning
ordered data? Isn't this called sort sets in the RM?
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
rows being notes on
> paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
time. Now. try to pull
> the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
sense in the relational
> model.
> To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
return the rows in any
> order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
about IAM page etc in the
> physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
have a clustered index or
> not.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
index can be heavy
> fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
forth on the disk, it will
> scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||As far as I know, RM does not have this concept, as this would mean that RM defines other concepts
than relations. I might be wrong, of course and I welcome (as always :-) ) pointers etc...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Ray Higdon" <sqlhigdon@.nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eNG0m9X6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
> > model.
> I understand that the order and PHYSICAL placement of the data is not a
> concern in the relational model but surely the RM addresses returning
> ordered data? Isn't this called sort sets in the RM?
> --
> Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
> rows being notes on
> > paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
> time. Now. try to pull
> > the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
> sense in the relational
> > model.
> >
> > To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
> return the rows in any
> > order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
> about IAM page etc in the
> > physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
> have a clustered index or
> > not.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
> index can be heavy
> > fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
> forth on the disk, it will
> > scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> > >
> > > select * from tablename
> > >
> > > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
> order,
> > > any mystery?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Any help on application that works like a profiler

Hi
I like to write an application that works kind of like Profiler.
I want to get some sort of event notification that something has happened on
the database server to let me know I should check for data and then log into
some table.
I tried through system stored procedure, but they don't let me directly
trace into the table, for that I have trace into file then from there to a
table.
I want to write something like profiler type application, that should be
continously listening to server events.
Are there any COM objects available for that or some other where through
which I can do this.
Thanks in Advance
PushkarIn SQL Server profiler, you can filter events based on application name or
user, and output the event trace to a table or text file. Once this is in
place, your application can simply query for specific event conditions. Just
in case, if your intention is to implement a complex data constraint, then
use a trigger. Also, if you are wanting to block specific types of user
access to tables or stored procedures, then implement this using appropriate
logins and object level permissions.
"Pushkar" <tiwaripushkar@.yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:eFI1SsgZFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I like to write an application that works kind of like Profiler.
> I want to get some sort of event notification that something has happened
on
> the database server to let me know I should check for data and then log
into
> some table.
> I tried through system stored procedure, but they don't let me directly
> trace into the table, for that I have trace into file then from there to a
> table.
> I want to write something like profiler type application, that should be
> continously listening to server events.
> Are there any COM objects available for that or some other where through
> which I can do this.
> Thanks in Advance
> Pushkar
>