Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Receving error with no description

I have designed quite a few reports over the past few weeks, and today I received the following error:

An error occured during local report processing.
The definition of the report /Discharge7.rdl is invalid.
Exception of type: 'Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportProcessing.ReportProcessingException' was thrown.

I've never seen this error before. I've gotten errors with typos in names of fields in my expressions, but I've never gotten an error on the 40 someodd other forms I have.

Does anyone know what could be causing this?

Did u tried to preview this report before uploading it to the server, the error says that is not definned correctly, so the report must be bad, when you make a preview on the reporting services it will show you the detailed errors.

|||You can also look at the logs for more detailed error messages. These are located here on a default installation: C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting Services\LogFiles\

For more information about the various Reporting Services log files:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms157403.aspx|||This was while I was previewing it in Visual Studio in the report designer. I haven't published it to the server yet.

Receiving garbage in excel when rendered via Subscription

Hi,
I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to excel.
After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays a bunch of
garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
"clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to excel.
> After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays a bunch
> of
> garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?|||Yes, we have.
"Sal Young" wrote:
> Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
>
> "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to excel.
> > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays a bunch
> > of
> > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
>
>|||What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
issue with Lotus for example).
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, we have.
> "Sal Young" wrote:
> > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> >
> >
> > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to excel.
> > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays a
bunch
> > > of
> > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> >
> >
> >|||Our email system is Novell GroupWise 6.5.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
> issue with Lotus for example).
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> > Yes, we have.
> >
> > "Sal Young" wrote:
> >
> > > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> > >
> > >
> > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to excel.
> > > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays a
> bunch
> > > > of
> > > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||Unless someone else jumps in I suggest calling support. If it is a bug you
will not be charged.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E23BCE25-0B8A-4259-9446-2479071A3144@.microsoft.com...
> Our email system is Novell GroupWise 6.5.
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
> > issue with Lotus for example).
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >
> > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> > > Yes, we have.
> > >
> > > "Sal Young" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to
excel.
> > > > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays
a
> > bunch
> > > > > of
> > > > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >|||We also recieve garbage when trying to open a PDF report via email as well. I
assume this is the same as Excel exporting garbage? One other item, when we
include the link in the email, the link itself is placed on two lines. The
top line is a hyperlink and the bottom isn't. Meaning, you can't click on it.
We have to place the top line in and then go back and copy the bottom line
and paste it after the first. Can this be fixed?
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Unless someone else jumps in I suggest calling support. If it is a bug you
> will not be charged.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E23BCE25-0B8A-4259-9446-2479071A3144@.microsoft.com...
> > Our email system is Novell GroupWise 6.5.
> >
> > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> > > What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
> > > issue with Lotus for example).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> > >
> > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Yes, we have.
> > > >
> > > > "Sal Young" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to
> excel.
> > > > > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays
> a
> > > bunch
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||I have having the same problem.
"clutch" wrote:
> We also recieve garbage when trying to open a PDF report via email as well. I
> assume this is the same as Excel exporting garbage? One other item, when we
> include the link in the email, the link itself is placed on two lines. The
> top line is a hyperlink and the bottom isn't. Meaning, you can't click on it.
> We have to place the top line in and then go back and copy the bottom line
> and paste it after the first. Can this be fixed?
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > Unless someone else jumps in I suggest calling support. If it is a bug you
> > will not be charged.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >
> >
> > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E23BCE25-0B8A-4259-9446-2479071A3144@.microsoft.com...
> > > Our email system is Novell GroupWise 6.5.
> > >
> > > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > >
> > > > What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
> > > > issue with Lotus for example).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> > > >
> > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > Yes, we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sal Young" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to
> > excel.
> > > > > > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays
> > a
> > > > bunch
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >|||Hi bokey,
This may help you.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];872774
"bokey" wrote:
> I have having the same problem.
> "clutch" wrote:
> > We also recieve garbage when trying to open a PDF report via email as well. I
> > assume this is the same as Excel exporting garbage? One other item, when we
> > include the link in the email, the link itself is placed on two lines. The
> > top line is a hyperlink and the bottom isn't. Meaning, you can't click on it.
> > We have to place the top line in and then go back and copy the bottom line
> > and paste it after the first. Can this be fixed?
> >
> > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> > > Unless someone else jumps in I suggest calling support. If it is a bug you
> > > will not be charged.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> > >
> > >
> > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:E23BCE25-0B8A-4259-9446-2479071A3144@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Our email system is Novell GroupWise 6.5.
> > > >
> > > > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What email system is being used for delivery (I know there has been some
> > > > > issue with Lotus for example).
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > > > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> > > > >
> > > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:0469D6D0-9A84-4BF5-B927-2308CB81F882@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > > Yes, we have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sal Young" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you install the SQL 2000 Reporting Services SP1?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "clutch" <clutch@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3C59803E-CAB9-4BEC-BA2A-A5E90A0B21B2@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I set up a standard subscription and am rendering the report to
> > > excel.
> > > > > > > > After recieving the email, I open the excel report and it displays
> > > a
> > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > garbage. Is there a known issue or a patch out for this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >|||That work-around (sending just a link to the report, etc.) does get
around the problem in some cases, but unfortunately it is impossible to
control what users select when they create a subscription.
I want to make sure that people were aware of a third-party product,
Proposion Report Adapter for Microsoft Reporting Services and Lotus
Notes/Domino, that fixes this problem and a lot more. It not only
allows you to deliver reports via NATIVE NOTES MAIL, it also allows you
to use Notes/Domino as data sources for reports and/or allows you to
automatically deposit scheduled reports into Notes databases.) See
http://www.proposion.com/ReportAdapter.

Receiving Export file name

Hello,
I work with Crystal in Visual Studio 2005.
Is it possible to receive the export file name after the report viewer finished exporting?I think it is not possible. It is also not possible to figure out which format was used for exporting, which optional parameters were used etc.
If I needed that information, I would probably create my own form for entering export file name and export options.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Receipt with copies

I need some URGENT help!!! I developed a .Net Web App. I used the Crystal Report system included with VB .Net. to make a report that prints the clients receipt, but I need that same information to be repeated three times in the same page (original and 2 copies). The paper (8.5" x 11") is perforated in thirds. Ive tried to repeat the same info three times in the Crystal Reports document, without success... Ive tried subreports, etc... Any suggestions? Pleeeeeeeease help...
Thanks...Which database are you using?
You can have stored procedure having the query

Select query
Union All
Select query
Union All
Select query

and design the report using that stored procedure

Friday, March 23, 2012

rebuilding index not doing anything

There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does not
matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone know
how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
rather not.
Chris
Hi Chris
What type of fragmentation are you seeing? How many pages are in these
indexes? Small indexes cannot be totally defrag'ed, and the fragmentation
doesn't really matter.
REBUILD is exactly the same as drop and recreate so if REBUILD doesn't help,
drop and recreate won't either.
Can you show us the output from sys.dm_index_physical_stats for these
indexes?
Why is it so important that these indexes be defrag'ed? What operations are
being negatively impacted because of the fragmentation?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris
|||In addition to what Kalen stated if they are Heaps then rebuilding the
indexes will do nothing for the table itself. You need a clustered index for
that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris
|||To add to Kalen and Andrew's comments, you should check the size (number of
pages) in the 25 indexes. If the indexes are very small, they're stored in
mixed extents. Mixed extents are shared by up to 8 objects, so your ability
to completely remove fragmentation is somewhat limited in this case whether
you reorganize or rebuild.
You might want to review this whitepaper on fragmentation
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx).
It's written for SQL Server 2000 but is still valid for SQL Server 2005.
They recommend not worrying about fragmentation on indexes with fewer than
1000 pages because the workload performance gain isn't significant enough to
warrant it.
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Download the latest version of Books Online from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb428874.aspx
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris
|||I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space to
you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have been
at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth (possibly at
the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't empty space in
the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in which to
defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try again with the
rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris
|||This was part of his original post:

>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the results
would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no effect
either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the lack of
free space would not be be much of a factor.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space
>to you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have
>been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth
>(possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't
>empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in
>which to defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try
>again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only 1
index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page moves
for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically on
disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
space in the database.
Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> This was part of his original post:
>
> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
> files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the
> results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no
> effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the
> lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>
|||During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
> But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only
> 1 index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page
> moves for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
> For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically
> on disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
> A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
> If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
> manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
> space in the database.
> Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
> And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to be
able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to really
defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good enough.
Curious.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
>
|||Defrag or Reorg (depending on the version) does not rebuild the pages and
extents like a Rebuild does. It simply swaps one page with another and this
can happen multiple times before it is done. None of this requires free
space (actually except for the very first first page I believe) to happen.
But since it does the reorg in two phases (compaction & defrag) it can
actually free up some pages if it compacts enough to do so. A reorg can can
remove virtually all of the Logical fragmentation but it not necessarily fix
extent fragmentation in which the next and previous extents are physically
contiguous.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l05fijdqgpl71@.corp.supernews.com...
> Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
> file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
> then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to
> be able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to
> really defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good
> enough. Curious.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

rebuilding index not doing anything

There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does not
matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone know
how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
rather not.
ChrisHi Chris
What type of fragmentation are you seeing? How many pages are in these
indexes? Small indexes cannot be totally defrag'ed, and the fragmentation
doesn't really matter.
REBUILD is exactly the same as drop and recreate so if REBUILD doesn't help,
drop and recreate won't either.
Can you show us the output from sys.dm_index_physical_stats for these
indexes?
Why is it so important that these indexes be defrag'ed? What operations are
being negatively impacted because of the fragmentation?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||In addition to what Kalen stated if they are Heaps then rebuilding the
indexes will do nothing for the table itself. You need a clustered index for
that.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||To add to Kalen and Andrew's comments, you should check the size (number of
pages) in the 25 indexes. If the indexes are very small, they're stored in
mixed extents. Mixed extents are shared by up to 8 objects, so your ability
to completely remove fragmentation is somewhat limited in this case whether
you reorganize or rebuild.
You might want to review this whitepaper on fragmentation
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx).
It's written for SQL Server 2000 but is still valid for SQL Server 2005.
They recommend not worrying about fragmentation on indexes with fewer than
1000 pages because the workload performance gain isn't significant enough to
warrant it.
--
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Download the latest version of Books Online from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb428874.aspx
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space to
you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have been
at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth (possibly at
the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't empty space in
the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in which to
defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try again with the
rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||This was part of his original post:
>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the results
would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no effect
either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the lack of
free space would not be be much of a factor.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space
>to you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have
>been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth
>(possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't
>empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in
>which to defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try
>again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
>> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
>> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
>> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
>> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
>> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
>> rather not.
>> Chris
>|||But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only 1
index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page moves
for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically on
disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
space in the database.
Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> This was part of his original post:
>>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>
> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
> files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the
> results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no
> effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the
> lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space
>>to you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have
>>been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth
>>(possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't
>>empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space
>>in which to defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try
>>again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
>> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
>> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
>> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
>> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same.
>> Anyone know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
>> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
>> rather not.
>> Chris
>>
>|||During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
> But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only
> 1 index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page
> moves for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
> For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically
> on disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
> A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
> If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
> manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
> space in the database.
> Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
> And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> This was part of his original post:
>>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>>
>> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the
>> data files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the
>> results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no
>> effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the
>> lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space
>>to you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have
>>been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth
>>(possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't
>>empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space
>>in which to defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try
>>again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
>> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
>> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
>> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It
>> does not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same.
>> Anyone know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
>> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
>> rather not.
>> Chris
>>
>|||Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to be
able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to really
defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good enough.
Curious.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
>> But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as
>> only 1 index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for
>> page moves for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply
>> enough.
>> For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically
>> on disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the
>> index):
>> A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
>> If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
>> manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
>> space in the database.
>> Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
>> And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> This was part of his original post:
>>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>>
>> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the
>> data files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the
>> results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has
>> no effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis
>> the lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free
>>space to you have in the database? If you are like every single client
>>I have been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing
>>autogrowth (possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If
>>there isn't empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks
>>of disk space in which to defragment anything. Double the size of the
>>database and try again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased
>>with the results.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
>> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
>> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
>> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It
>> does not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the
>> same. Anyone know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
>> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD
>> and report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this
>> issue.
>> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
>> rather not.
>> Chris
>>
>>
>|||Defrag or Reorg (depending on the version) does not rebuild the pages and
extents like a Rebuild does. It simply swaps one page with another and this
can happen multiple times before it is done. None of this requires free
space (actually except for the very first first page I believe) to happen.
But since it does the reorg in two phases (compaction & defrag) it can
actually free up some pages if it compacts enough to do so. A reorg can can
remove virtually all of the Logical fragmentation but it not necessarily fix
extent fragmentation in which the next and previous extents are physically
contiguous.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l05fijdqgpl71@.corp.supernews.com...
> Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
> file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
> then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to
> be able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to
> really defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good
> enough. Curious.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same
>> index.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
>> But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as
>> only 1 index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for
>> page moves for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply
>> enough.
>> For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are
>> physically on disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order
>> of the index):
>> A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
>> If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
>> manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
>> space in the database.
>> Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
>> And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> This was part of his original post:
>>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
>>
>> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the
>> data files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or
>> the results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG
>> has no effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page
>> basis the lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free
>>space to you have in the database? If you are like every single client
>>I have been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing
>>autogrowth (possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If
>>there isn't empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks
>>of disk space in which to defragment anything. Double the size of the
>>database and try again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased
>>with the results.
>> --
>> Kevin G. Boles
>> TheSQLGuru
>> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>>
>> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
>> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
>> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation
>> completes without error, so I don't understand why it is still
>> fragmented. It does not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the
>> result is the same. Anyone know how to fix this? I am using SQL
>> Server 2005.
>> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD
>> and report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this
>> issue.
>> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but
>> I'd rather not.
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>

rebuilding index not doing anything

There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does not
matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone know
how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
rather not.
ChrisHi Chris
What type of fragmentation are you seeing? How many pages are in these
indexes? Small indexes cannot be totally defrag'ed, and the fragmentation
doesn't really matter.
REBUILD is exactly the same as drop and recreate so if REBUILD doesn't help,
drop and recreate won't either.
Can you show us the output from sys.dm_index_physical_stats for these
indexes?
Why is it so important that these indexes be defrag'ed? What operations are
being negatively impacted because of the fragmentation?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||In addition to what Kalen stated if they are Heaps then rebuilding the
indexes will do nothing for the table itself. You need a clustered index for
that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||To add to Kalen and Andrew's comments, you should check the size (number of
pages) in the 25 indexes. If the indexes are very small, they're stored in
mixed extents. Mixed extents are shared by up to 8 objects, so your ability
to completely remove fragmentation is somewhat limited in this case whether
you reorganize or rebuild.
You might want to review this whitepaper on fragmentation
([url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx[/url
]).
It's written for SQL Server 2000 but is still valid for SQL Server 2005.
They recommend not worrying about fragmentation on indexes with fewer than
1000 pages because the workload performance gain isn't significant enough to
warrant it.
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Download the latest version of Books Online from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...r/bb428874.aspx
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space to
you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have been
at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth (possibly at
the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't empty space in
the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in which to
defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try again with the
rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> There are 25 indexes in my database which continue to report they are
> severely fragmented even after I rebuild them. The operation completes
> without error, so I don't understand why it is still fragmented. It does
> not matter if I use REBUILD or REORGANIZE, the result is the same. Anyone
> know how to fix this? I am using SQL Server 2005.
> BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
> report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
> If I drop and recreate the index, obviously that would fix it, but I'd
> rather not.
> Chris|||This was part of his original post:

>BTW I should mention that most indexes in the database will REBUILD and
>report no fragmentation afterwards. Only 25 of them have this issue.
While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the results
would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no effect
either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the lack of
free space would not be be much of a factor.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>I think the most important thing not mentioned yet is how much free space
>to you have in the database? If you are like every single client I have
>been at the answer is essentially none. You are allowing autogrowth
>(possibly at the default setting) to grow your database. If there isn't
>empty space in the database, there is no contiguous blocks of disk space in
>which to defragment anything. Double the size of the database and try
>again with the rebuild. I think you will be pleased with the results.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Chris" <fake@.email.com> wrote in message
> news:O0doxNrMIHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>|||But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only 1
index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page moves
for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically on
disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
space in the database.
Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> This was part of his original post:
>
>
> While it is absolutely true that you need plenty of free space in the data
> files when rebuilding an index it is unlikely the cause here or the
> results would not be so consistent. He also mentioned that a REORG has no
> effect either. Since that works by swapping on a page by page basis the
> lack of free space would not be be much of a factor.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kuhuki5tflk88@.corp.supernews.com...
>|||During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
> But does a page by page swap not still leave fragmentation as long as only
> 1 index is being page swapped at a time? Or does a reorg allow for page
> moves for multiple objects? Never really thought about it deeply enough.
> For example, say there are index objects A, B and C. They are physically
> on disk as follows (the number is the 'correct' Btree order of the index):
> A2B1C1C2A3B2A1.
> If index A is is currently being REORGd, how do the pages actually get
> manipulated during the operation? Let us assume there is no other free
> space in the database.
> Does B1 get swapped for A1, leaving this: A2A1C1C2A3B2B1
> And then A1 and A2 swap, leaving this: A1A2C1C2A3B2B1, etc, etc?
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OyTW6KuMIHA.2208@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>|||Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to be
able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to really
defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good enough.
Curious.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> During reorg, pages are only swapped with other pages from the same index.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13kup01apko432d@.corp.supernews.com...
>|||Defrag or Reorg (depending on the version) does not rebuild the pages and
extents like a Rebuild does. It simply swaps one page with another and this
can happen multiple times before it is done. None of this requires free
space (actually except for the very first first page I believe) to happen.
But since it does the reorg in two phases (compaction & defrag) it can
actually free up some pages if it compacts enough to do so. A reorg can can
remove virtually all of the Logical fragmentation but it not necessarily fix
extent fragmentation in which the next and previous extents are physically
contiguous.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l05fijdqgpl71@.corp.supernews.com...
> Which would leave fragmentation in place if there is no free space in the
> file. Hmm, come to think of it, if page SWAPPING is all that can be done
> then even huge amounts of free space won't do any good. It would need to
> be able to move pages to empty space and lay them down contiguously to
> really defrag the index, but if it can only swap pages that isn't good
> enough. Curious.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:OSG1InvMIHA.2308@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Rebuild Index Failing

The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
failing.
The text file report is of very little help...
Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Duration: 00:00:00
Status: Succeeded.
Details:
The job history doesn't tell much either...
Date3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
LogJob History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
Step ID0
ServerSQLSERVER
Job NameWeekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Step Name(Job outcome)
Duration04:25:27
Sql Severity0
Sql Message ID0
Operator Emailed
Operator Net sent
Operator Paged
Retries Attempted0
Message
The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from SQL
2000.
I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring UPDATEUSAGE
be run again.
Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
What is causing this?
Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
Thanks in advance,
John
John,
SP2 will give you a lot more output but there are known problems with maint
plans and checkdb. See:-
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi/archive/2007/03/08/be-aware-sp2-maint-plans-and-checkdb.aspx
Chris
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John
|||Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
send email through there).
Thanks
Paul Randal
Principal Lead Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/default.aspx
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John
|||Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking an interest in my little dilemma.
Forgive me but I don't see how to send an email from your blog. Can you
please expand on how to do it?
Thanks,
John
"Paul S. Randal [MS]" wrote:

> Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
> but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
> really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
> messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
> send email through there).
> Thanks
> --
> Paul Randal
> Principal Lead Program Manager
> Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/default.aspx
>
> "John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Rebuild Index Failing

The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
failing.
The text file report is of very little help...
Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Duration: 00:00:00
Status: Succeeded.
Details:
The job history doesn't tell much either...
Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
Step ID 0
Server SQLSERVER
Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Step Name (Job outcome)
Duration 04:25:27
Sql Severity 0
Sql Message ID 0
Operator Emailed
Operator Net sent
Operator Paged
Retries Attempted 0
Message
The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from SQL
2000.
I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring UPDATEUSAGE
be run again.
Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
What is causing this?
Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
Thanks in advance,
JohnJohn,
SP2 will give you a lot more output but there are known problems with maint
plans and checkdb. See:-
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_kara...nd-checkdb.aspx
Chris
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John|||Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
send email through there).
Thanks
Paul Randal
Principal Lead Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor...ne/default.aspx
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John|||Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking an interest in my little dilemma.
Forgive me but I don't see how to send an email from your blog. Can you
please expand on how to do it?
Thanks,
John
"Paul S. Randal [MS]" wrote:

> Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
> but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
> really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
> messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
> send email through there).
> Thanks
> --
> Paul Randal
> Principal Lead Program Manager
> Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor...ne/default.aspx
>
> "John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Rebuild Index Failing

The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
failing.
The text file report is of very little help...
Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Duration: 00:00:00
Status: Succeeded.
Details:
The job history doesn't tell much either...
Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
Step ID 0
Server SQLSERVER
Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
Step Name (Job outcome)
Duration 04:25:27
Sql Severity 0
Sql Message ID 0
Operator Emailed
Operator Net sent
Operator Paged
Retries Attempted 0
Message
The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from SQL
2000.
I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring UPDATEUSAGE
be run again.
Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
What is causing this?
Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
Thanks in advance,
JohnJohn,
SP2 will give you a lot more output but there are known problems with maint
plans and checkdb. See:-
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi/archive/2007/03/08/be-aware-sp2-maint-plans-and-checkdb.aspx
Chris
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John|||Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
send email through there).
Thanks
--
Paul Randal
Principal Lead Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/default.aspx
"John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> failing.
> The text file report is of very little help...
> Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Duration: 00:00:00
> Status: Succeeded.
> Details:
> The job history doesn't tell much either...
> Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> Step ID 0
> Server SQLSERVER
> Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> Step Name (Job outcome)
> Duration 04:25:27
> Sql Severity 0
> Sql Message ID 0
> Operator Emailed
> Operator Net sent
> Operator Paged
> Retries Attempted 0
> Message
> The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
>
> These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> SQL
> 2000.
> I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> UPDATEUSAGE
> be run again.
> Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> What is causing this?
> Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> Thanks in advance,
> John|||Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking an interest in my little dilemma.
Forgive me but I don't see how to send an email from your blog. Can you
please expand on how to do it?
Thanks,
John
"Paul S. Randal [MS]" wrote:
> Its well known that index usage counts could get out of whack on SQL 2000
> but the algorithm was changed for 2005 suh that they never should. I'd
> really like to know more about this - can you send me email with the error
> messages you're getting from the rebuilds? (Go to the blog site below and
> send email through there).
> Thanks
> --
> Paul Randal
> Principal Lead Program Manager
> Microsoft SQL Server Core Storage Engine,
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/default.aspx
>
> "John Oberlin" <JohnOberlin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5F4C1EBF-EE19-486C-A09C-D6B1F3614108@.microsoft.com...
> > The SQL Server 2005 (9.0.2047) 'Rebuild Index' maintenance plan task is
> > failing.
> >
> > The text file report is of very little help...
> > Microsoft(R) Server Maintenance Utility (Unicode) Version 9.0.2047
> > Report was generated on "SQLSERVER".
> > Maintenance Plan: Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> > Duration: 00:00:00
> > Status: Succeeded.
> > Details:
> >
> > The job history doesn't tell much either...
> >
> > Date 3/15/2007 8:00:00 PM
> > Log Job History (Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan)
> > Step ID 0
> > Server SQLSERVER
> > Job Name Weekly All DB Maintenance Plan
> > Step Name (Job outcome)
> > Duration 04:25:27
> > Sql Severity 0
> > Sql Message ID 0
> > Operator Emailed
> > Operator Net sent
> > Operator Paged
> > Retries Attempted 0
> >
> > Message
> > The job failed. The Job was invoked by Schedule 99 (Weekly All DB
> > Maintenance Plan). The last step to run was step 1 (Subplan).
> >
> >
> >
> > These symptoms are worse on (but not limited to) databases migrated from
> > SQL
> > 2000.
> >
> > I have discovered running 'DBCC UPDATEUSAGE (DatabaseName)' allows Rebuild
> > Index to run. But eventually Rebuild Index will fail requiring
> > UPDATEUSAGE
> > be run again.
> >
> > Is there any way to get a more verbose (meaningful) task report?
> >
> > What is causing this?
> >
> > Is there any harm in running UPDATEUSAGE on a regular basis?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > John
>
>

Rebort Builder Access

Hi,

Hope someone can assist

Does Report Server allow access to Report Builder in an extranet setup? We intend to use the report builder functionality to prove basic report creation for users over the internet, these users would be outside or corporate network.

Is this possible? security issues?

many thanks

Simon.

Should work.

See here for further information on installing on non-domain users machines.

http://blogs.msdn.com/bobmeyers/archive/2006/09/28/775584.aspx

and more info on troubleshooting

http://blogs.msdn.com/bimusings/archive/2005/11/07/489968.aspx

Note that it requires .net 2.0 framework on client PC. Have a look at other 3rd-party report building apps for RS if a no-footprint web client is required.

cheers,

Andrew

Friday, March 9, 2012

Reasonable size of rdl file?

I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key data
for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will be
39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
datasets (all using stored procedures).
I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
Am I stretching it? Experiences?
More detailed information:
The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data driven
subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then will
mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with the
diagrams.
Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I pick
the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression). When
people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one place,
instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
(I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if I
can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this then
the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
TIA
Tibor Karaszi
SQL Server MVPUndo/Redo in Report Designer is somewhat memory intensive. You may find that
you need to restart Report Designer if you use this feature extensively
during a single editing session. Another aspect is that very large RDLs,
especially those that contain a large number of images, can impact the
Report Designer's editing experience. In general, Report Designer should be
able handle this report.
--
Bruce Johnson [MSFT]
Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eDPik7ymEHA.3944@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key data
> for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will be
> 39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
> Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
> datasets (all using stored procedures).
> I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
> Am I stretching it? Experiences?
>
> More detailed information:
> The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data driven
> subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
> departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then will
> mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with the
> diagrams.
> Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
> Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I
pick
> the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression). When
> people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one place,
> instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
> (I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if I
> can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this then
> the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
> TIA
> Tibor Karaszi
> SQL Server MVP
>|||OK, sounds good. Good tips. I don't use much UNDO/REDO in the first place, at least not at this
stage. :-)
One thing I do is to copy a whole measurement (three diagrams plus a few text boxes) and then start
work on the new sets of diagrams. This has worked fine so far, and I understand if RD becomes a bit
sluggish. So far I haven't noticed any problems.
I'd just hate to be on the last sets of diagram and I'm going beyond some boundary and RD or RS
comes crashing on me. Even with frequent backups it will take a little while to recover from such,
and if necessary I would then prefer doing it right from the beginning.
Thanks Bruce!
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Bruce Johnson [MSFT]" <brucejoh@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eCj97r0mEHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Undo/Redo in Report Designer is somewhat memory intensive. You may find that
> you need to restart Report Designer if you use this feature extensively
> during a single editing session. Another aspect is that very large RDLs,
> especially those that contain a large number of images, can impact the
> Report Designer's editing experience. In general, Report Designer should be
> able handle this report.
> --
> Bruce Johnson [MSFT]
> Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:eDPik7ymEHA.3944@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key data
>> for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will be
>> 39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
>> Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
>> datasets (all using stored procedures).
>> I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
>> Am I stretching it? Experiences?
>>
>> More detailed information:
>> The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data driven
>> subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
>> departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then will
>> mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with the
>> diagrams.
>> Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
>> Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I
> pick
>> the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression). When
>> people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one place,
>> instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
>> (I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if I
>> can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this then
>> the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
>> TIA
>> Tibor Karaszi
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>|||140 KB is certainly reasonable.
BTW: IIS 6.0 has a security restriction of a default 4 MB file
upload/download limit. This is due to a buffering restriction implemented in
IIS 6.0 (AspMaxRequestEntityAllowed setting in MetaBase.xml). Therefore, if
RDL files get larger than 4 MB, you might run into an issue when uploading
them on the report server.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eDPik7ymEHA.3944@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key data
> for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will be
> 39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
> Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
> datasets (all using stored procedures).
> I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
> Am I stretching it? Experiences?
>
> More detailed information:
> The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data driven
> subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
> departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then will
> mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with the
> diagrams.
> Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
> Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I
pick
> the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression). When
> people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one place,
> instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
> (I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if I
> can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this then
> the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
> TIA
> Tibor Karaszi
> SQL Server MVP
>|||Assuming the size of the file is roughly proportional to what I have now, I will probably end up
with a 0.5 MB file after adding the rest of the diagrams and some fluff. Even with lots of fluff, I
will most probably not go over 0.6-0.7 MB. Seems I have some margin, then.
And thanks for the tip about IIS size restriction, good to know if I happen to run into this at some
point. Not something I'd find easily myself. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u8LLCp1mEHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 140 KB is certainly reasonable.
> BTW: IIS 6.0 has a security restriction of a default 4 MB file
> upload/download limit. This is due to a buffering restriction implemented in
> IIS 6.0 (AspMaxRequestEntityAllowed setting in MetaBase.xml). Therefore, if
> RDL files get larger than 4 MB, you might run into an issue when uploading
> them on the report server.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:eDPik7ymEHA.3944@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key data
>> for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will be
>> 39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
>> Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
>> datasets (all using stored procedures).
>> I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
>> Am I stretching it? Experiences?
>>
>> More detailed information:
>> The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data driven
>> subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
>> departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then will
>> mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with the
>> diagrams.
>> Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
>> Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I
> pick
>> the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression). When
>> people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one place,
>> instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
>> (I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if I
>> can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this then
>> the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
>> TIA
>> Tibor Karaszi
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>|||Just as an FYI:
The rdl file ended up in size 330kB. RD was sluggish but worked. Howeverm
the data-driven subscription did not work. I don't have exact error message
here, but the service logged error messages about memory allocation. The
service terminated. I suspect this was in the PDF rendering (which worked
OK, but was slow both in VS and RM).
So I splitted the report up in 5 files (one per printed page) and it work
fine now. The job finished (for 37 PDF files) in about 5-7 minutes. So, I
now have 5 such jobs, one for each printed file.
Tibor
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u8LLCp1mEHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 140 KB is certainly reasonable.
> BTW: IIS 6.0 has a security restriction of a default 4 MB file
> upload/download limit. This is due to a buffering restriction implemented
in
> IIS 6.0 (AspMaxRequestEntityAllowed setting in MetaBase.xml). Therefore,
if
> RDL files get larger than 4 MB, you might run into an issue when uploading
> them on the report server.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> message news:eDPik7ymEHA.3944@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I'm working with a report that will produce 5 printed pages with key
data
> > for a company. Each page will contain from 3 to 12 diagrams, there will
be
> > 39 diagrams totally in the rdl file. Plus some text boxes etc.
> > Each diagram has a dataset, plus some support datasets. Totally about 45
> > datasets (all using stored procedures).
> >
> > I currently have 15 diagrams, and the rdl file is 140kB.
> >
> > Am I stretching it? Experiences?
> >
> >
> > More detailed information:
> > The reason for keeping it in one rdl file is that a scheduled data
driven
> > subscription will produce one PDF file per department (about 100
> > departments). The PDF file will be send to a printing shop which then
will
> > mail the papers to each department. Each PDF file has 5 A3 pages with
the
> > diagrams.
> >
> > Keeping it in one RDL file allow for me to have one subscription.
> >
> > Also, I have text boxes with values for colors for diagram bars etc (I
> pick
> > the values for the diagrams from the text boxes using an expression).
When
> > people will start fiddling with changing colors, I can do it in one
place,
> > instead of setting it in all 39 diagrams.
> >
> > (I want to keep the work in Report Designer as much as possible. Even if
I
> > can edit the RDL file, I don't want that the customer need to do this
then
> > the project is rolled out and I'm out of here... :-). )
> >
> > TIA
> > Tibor Karaszi
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
>