order data

Hi all,
someone could help me?
I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
Thanks a lot
wa
The obvious question is why it isn't datetime...
That aside, you can convert the data in your ORDER BY clause to datetime (or a character
representation which sorts correctly), but we need to see what format you have for your date values
first.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141633726.439178.133970@.i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi all,
> someone could help me?
> I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
> that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
> Thanks a lot
> wa
>
|||the format I have is nvarchar:
24/02/06 18.09.14
Could you post me an example pls?
Thank you in advance
wa
|||Hi
CREATE TABLE #Test
(
dt VARCHAR(20)
)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('24/02/06 18.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('22/02/06 17.15.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('21/02/06 22.10.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('28/02/06 04.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('05/02/06 04.09.14')
SELECT * FROM #Test ORDER BY dt
--See the output
SELECT CAST('20'+SUBSTRING(dt,5,2)+
SUBSTRING(dt,3,2)+SUBSTRING(dt,1,2)+' '+SUBSTRING(dt,8,8)AS DATETIME) AS
newdt FROM
(
SELECT REPLACE(REPLACE(dt,'.',':'),'/','') AS dt FROM #Test
) as Der ORDER BY newdt
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141634987.423331.180520@.e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
> the format I have is nvarchar:
> 24/02/06 18.09.14
> Could you post me an example pls?
> Thank you in advance
> wa
>
|||Thanks a lots!
I'm new on sql language.

order data

Hi all,
someone could help me?
I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
Thanks a lot
waThe obvious question is why it isn't datetime...
That aside, you can convert the data in your ORDER BY clause to datetime (or a character
representation which sorts correctly), but we need to see what format you have for your date values
first.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141633726.439178.133970@.i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> someone could help me?
> I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
> that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
> Thanks a lot
> wa
>|||the format I have is nvarchar:
24/02/06 18.09.14
Could you post me an example pls?
Thank you in advance
wa|||Hi
CREATE TABLE #Test
(
dt VARCHAR(20)
)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('24/02/06 18.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('22/02/06 17.15.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('21/02/06 22.10.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('28/02/06 04.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('05/02/06 04.09.14')
SELECT * FROM #Test ORDER BY dt
--See the output
SELECT CAST('20'+SUBSTRING(dt,5,2)+
SUBSTRING(dt,3,2)+SUBSTRING(dt,1,2)+' '+SUBSTRING(dt,8,8)AS DATETIME) AS
newdt FROM
(
SELECT REPLACE(REPLACE(dt,'.',':'),'/','') AS dt FROM #Test
) as Der ORDER BY newdt
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141634987.423331.180520@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> the format I have is nvarchar:
> 24/02/06 18.09.14
> Could you post me an example pls?
> Thank you in advance
> wa
>|||Thanks a lots!
I'm new on sql language.

order data

Hi all,
someone could help me?
I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
Thanks a lot
waThe obvious question is why it isn't datetime...
That aside, you can convert the data in your ORDER BY clause to datetime (or
a character
representation which sorts correctly), but we need to see what format you ha
ve for your date values
first.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141633726.439178.133970@.i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> someone could help me?
> I need to order some records by data; the problem is the definition of
> that data field: it' is't a datetime format, but nvarchar.
> Thanks a lot
> wa
>|||the format I have is nvarchar:
24/02/06 18.09.14
Could you post me an example pls?
Thank you in advance
wa|||Hi
CREATE TABLE #Test
(
dt VARCHAR(20)
)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('24/02/06 18.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('22/02/06 17.15.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('21/02/06 22.10.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('28/02/06 04.09.14')
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES ('05/02/06 04.09.14')
SELECT * FROM #Test ORDER BY dt
--See the output
SELECT CAST('20'+SUBSTRING(dt,5,2)+
SUBSTRING(dt,3,2)+SUBSTRING(dt,1,2)+' '+SUBSTRING(dt,8,8)AS DATETIME) AS
newdt FROM
(
SELECT REPLACE(REPLACE(dt,'.',':'),'/','') AS dt FROM #Test
) as Der ORDER BY newdt
"Wasco" <wasco77@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1141634987.423331.180520@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> the format I have is nvarchar:
> 24/02/06 18.09.14
> Could you post me an example pls?
> Thank you in advance
> wa
>|||Thanks a lots!
I'm new on sql language.

Order by with Insert into?

I'm selecting records from a table and inserting them into another existing table

Use DSRBQ000
INSERT INTO dbo.db_table_information
Select Table_Name, Column_Name + ' ' + Upper(data_type) +
CASE WHEN data_type IN('binary','char','nchar','nvarchar','varbinary', 'varchar') THEN '('
+ Cast(character_maximum_length AS varchar(10))+')'
WHEN data_type IN('decimal','numeric') THEN '(' + Cast(numeric_precision as varchar(3)) + ','
+ Cast(numeric_scale as varchar(3))+ ')'
Else ''
End +
CASE WHEN columnproperty(object_id(table_name),column_name,' IsIdentity')= 1 THEN ' IDENTITY' +
'(' + Cast(ident_seed(table_name) AS varchar(10)) + ',' + Cast(ident_incr(table_name) AS varchar(10)) + ')'
Else ''
End +
CASE WHEN is_nullable = 'YES' THEN ' NULL'
ELSE ''
END 'Column_Definition', ordinal_position
from information_schema.columns
where table_name IN(select distinct table_name from information_schema.tables where table_type = 'BASE TABLE')
and table_name NOT IN('dtproperties','dbo.db_table_information')
order by table_name, ordinal_position

I'm trying to first order by table_name and then ordinal_position. However, when viewing the table that it data is getting inserted into, I notice that even though it is ordered by table_name, sometimes a row is out of order according to ordinal position.

Is there a valid reason for this? Are you not allow to select the order from which a recordset gets inserted into a table? If thats the case, how can I update the db_table_information and save it so it is in table_name, ordinal_position order?Inserting a sorted record set is usally a wast of time as there is most likely an index in place. When you issue a select your result set will be based on the clustered index or first non-clustered index created for the table.

If you always want db_table_information to be in table_name, ordinal_position order then create an index on those attributes.|||figured out why this occured.. i defined ordinal position as char instead of a number.|||DOH! If only these computers would do as we want rather than do as we ask the world would be a better place!

ORDER BY NEWID() returning duplicates records

This returns 2 random records for me. However, on occasion, the 2 records
returned are identical. Does anybody have any thought for preventing this
from happening?
SELECT TOP 2 P.*, C.CatID FROM JEP_tblProducts P, JEP_LtblProductCategories
C WHERE P.Image1<>'' AND C.ProductID = P.ProductID ORDER BY NEWID()
TIA,
TonyGThat's because SQL evaluates NewId() only once in your query. If you are try
ing
to randomly return two records try this:
Select TOP2 NewId(), P.*, C.CatId
From JEP_tblProducts As P
, JEP_LtblProductCategories As C
Where P.Image1 <> ''
And C.ProductId = P.ProductId
Order By 1
Thomas|||Hi
It could be because the join results in 2 identical records in some instance
s.
Run the query with no TOP clause and see how that compares to the number of
records in the tables.
You may want to update your query to the ANSI style join:
SELECT
TOP 2
P.*,
C.CatID
FROM
JEP_tblProducts AS P
INNER JOJN JEP_LtblProductCategories AS C
ON C.ProductID = P.ProductID
WHERE
P.Image1<>''
ORDER BY NEWID()
Regards
Mike
"TonyG" wrote:

> This returns 2 random records for me. However, on occasion, the 2 records
> returned are identical. Does anybody have any thought for preventing this
> from happening?
> SELECT TOP 2 P.*, C.CatID FROM JEP_tblProducts P, JEP_LtblProductCategorie
s
> C WHERE P.Image1<>'' AND C.ProductID = P.ProductID ORDER BY NEWID()
> TIA,
> TonyG
>
>|||>> That's because SQL evaluates NewId() only once in your query.
Generally, any non-numeric expression used in the ORDER BY clause is
evaluated in the same way the expression is evaluated in the SELECT clause.
And it is applicable for NEWID() as well.
The duplication OP has is perhaps due to lack of keys/constraints in the
tables and/or the result of using non-unique columns in the JOIN clause. But
then without seeing any useful DDLs, it would be anyone's guess.
Anith|||Thats not true, using the newid () funtion in the order generates for every
row in the query a seperate GUID , every time you execute is. There is a
problem with your query it returns more than one row becasue your table in
not only related to the second table via one column.
Try to select this and youll see that there will be more than one row
returned:
Select count(*) from
> From JEP_tblProducts As P
> , JEP_LtblProductCategories As C
> Where P.Image1 <> ''
> And C.ProductId = P.ProductId
Perhaps you can make a join with the appropiate key in it.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Thomas" <thomas@.newsgroup.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Onzdy%23nSFHA.248@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> That's because SQL evaluates NewId() only once in your query. If you are
> trying to randomly return two records try this:
> Select TOP2 NewId(), P.*, C.CatId
> From JEP_tblProducts As P
> , JEP_LtblProductCategories As C
> Where P.Image1 <> ''
> And C.ProductId = P.ProductId
> Order By 1
>
> Thomas
>|||Well, you have a 1-M relationship. Thus, it's possible to return 2 that are
identical. The newid() only randomizes the resultset and does not remove the
dupes.
Here is a trick to get the uniqueness.
SELECT TOP 2 *
from (select distinct
P.*, C.CatID FROM JEP_tblProducts P, JEP_LtblProductCategories
C WHERE P.Image1<>'' AND C.ProductID = P.ProductID
) derived
ORDER BY NEWID()
-oj
"TonyG" <groups@.RE-MO-VE-globalmagic.com> wrote in message
news:OUBU05nSFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> This returns 2 random records for me. However, on occasion, the 2 records
> returned are identical. Does anybody have any thought for preventing this
> from happening?
> SELECT TOP 2 P.*, C.CatID FROM JEP_tblProducts P,
> JEP_LtblProductCategories C WHERE P.Image1<>'' AND C.ProductID =
> P.ProductID ORDER BY NEWID()
> TIA,
> TonyG
>|||I stand corrected. Is there is any way to know ths for sure (documentation,
proof of concept etc)?
Thomas
"Anith Sen" <anith@.bizdatasolutions.com> wrote in message
news:eGCxkEoSFHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Generally, any non-numeric expression used in the ORDER BY clause is evalu
ated
> in the same way the expression is evaluated in the SELECT clause. And it i
s
> applicable for NEWID() as well.
> The duplication OP has is perhaps due to lack of keys/constraints in the
> tables and/or the result of using non-unique columns in the JOIN clause. B
ut
> then without seeing any useful DDLs, it would be anyone's guess.
> --
> Anith
>|||Build an example myself. Thanks for the correction.
Thomas
"Anith Sen" <anith@.bizdatasolutions.com> wrote in message
news:eGCxkEoSFHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Generally, any non-numeric expression used in the ORDER BY clause is evalu
ated
> in the same way the expression is evaluated in the SELECT clause. And it i
s
> applicable for NEWID() as well.
> The duplication OP has is perhaps due to lack of keys/constraints in the
> tables and/or the result of using non-unique columns in the JOIN clause. B
ut
> then without seeing any useful DDLs, it would be anyone's guess.
> --
> Anith
>|||Thanks, that did the trick.
I knew I was missing something.
TonyG
"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:OJSm6JoSFHA.2000@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Well, you have a 1-M relationship. Thus, it's possible to return 2 that
> are identical. The newid() only randomizes the resultset and does not
> remove the dupes.
> Here is a trick to get the uniqueness.
> SELECT TOP 2 *
> from (select distinct
> P.*, C.CatID FROM JEP_tblProducts P, JEP_LtblProductCategories
> C WHERE P.Image1<>'' AND C.ProductID = P.ProductID
> ) derived
> ORDER BY NEWID()
> --
> -oj
>
> "TonyG" <groups@.RE-MO-VE-globalmagic.com> wrote in message
> news:OUBU05nSFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>

order by issue

I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to return
(TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
getting is a server timeout.
My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
mycolumn"
I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
error.
Any Ideas on how to fix?
How many rows are in the table? Is there an index on mycolumn?
"Jimmy Stewart" <jstewart@.globalparadigmsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:u7RQrc1mIHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to
> return
> (TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
> getting is a server timeout.
> My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
> mycolumn"
> I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
> error.
> Any Ideas on how to fix?
>
|||There are something over 1.2 million records (rows) in the table.
No the column is not indexed.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:F3DD40E4-5AF5-4392-8A0D-A09AEC62FF14@.microsoft.com...
> How many rows are in the table? Is there an index on mycolumn?
>
> "Jimmy Stewart" <jstewart@.globalparadigmsolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:u7RQrc1mIHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||In that case, each query requires a full table scan to determine the 500
rows you want to select.
Either increase the connection timeout or (preferably) add proper
indexes.
Also, it is best to only select the columns that you need, and thus
avoid SELECT *
Gert-Jan
Jimmy Stewart wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are something over 1.2 million records (rows) in the table.
> No the column is not indexed.
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> news:F3DD40E4-5AF5-4392-8A0D-A09AEC62FF14@.microsoft.com...

order by issue

I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to return
(TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
getting is a server timeout.
My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
mycolumn"
I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
error.
Any Ideas on how to fix?How many rows are in the table? Is there an index on mycolumn?
"Jimmy Stewart" <jstewart@.globalparadigmsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:u7RQrc1mIHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to
> return
> (TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
> getting is a server timeout.
> My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
> mycolumn"
> I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
> error.
> Any Ideas on how to fix?
>|||There are something over 1.2 million records (rows) in the table.
No the column is not indexed.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:F3DD40E4-5AF5-4392-8A0D-A09AEC62FF14@.microsoft.com...
> How many rows are in the table? Is there an index on mycolumn?
>
> "Jimmy Stewart" <jstewart@.globalparadigmsolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:u7RQrc1mIHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to
> > return
> > (TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
> > getting is a server timeout.
> >
> > My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
> > mycolumn"
> >
> > I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
> > error.
> >
> > Any Ideas on how to fix?
> >
> >
>|||In that case, each query requires a full table scan to determine the 500
rows you want to select.
Either increase the connection timeout or (preferably) add proper
indexes.
Also, it is best to only select the columns that you need, and thus
avoid SELECT *
--
Gert-Jan
Jimmy Stewart wrote:
> There are something over 1.2 million records (rows) in the table.
> No the column is not indexed.
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> news:F3DD40E4-5AF5-4392-8A0D-A09AEC62FF14@.microsoft.com...
> > How many rows are in the table? Is there an index on mycolumn?
> >
> >
> > "Jimmy Stewart" <jstewart@.globalparadigmsolutions.com> wrote in message
> > news:u7RQrc1mIHA.4292@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > > I'm trying to get a query to work that specifies how many records to
> > > return
> > > (TOP(###)) and order them by one of the columns in the table. What I'm
> > > getting is a server timeout.
> > >
> > > My query looks kinda like this "select top(500) * from mytable order by
> > > mycolumn"
> > >
> > > I've tried this on a couple of different servers with the same timeout
> > > error.
> > >
> > > Any Ideas on how to fix?
> > >
> > >
> >

ORDER BY efficiency

Hi,

I'm using a table with about 5 million records, i'm preforming a select query onthe table. I retrieve from that query about 2-4 million records when i'm not sorting the data the query return very fast. If I'm sorting the data (ORDER BY timestamp - when timestamp is a BIG_INT with an index) the query takes a long time to return about 30 seconds.

I tryed to do the same thing with access DB and i get better results: the query with ORDER BY takes about 1 second.

I dont think it's possible that access DB have better performance then SQL server, does any one have any idea what can be me problem?

thanks ishay.

can you set this filed as clustered index?|||

It will normally take much longer to sort 2-4 million rows than it will to simply select the data. Also, is the access database on your local machine? If this is the case, then YES, Access might well APPEAR WAY more efficient than SQL Server on an external machine because with the Access database you do not have to spend telecommunication time transceiving the data between your machine and the server.

Dave

|||What's the definition of the index on the timestamp column? Is it the clustered index? Have you looked at the query plan? In SQL Server Management Studio select "Include Actual Execution Plan" under the query menu to see the query plan. You want to see a clustered index scan over the index for the timestamp column for best performance.|||

Thank you all. I set the index to be clustered index and it's working prepectly!

Ishay

Order by clause

If I use the order by clause to sort on a date, where the date and
time stamp are the exact same for multiple records, how does SQL
output the data?
At random... or does it look at the primary key?"Chirag Patel" <romeo9225@.yahoo.com> wrote...
> If I use the order by clause to sort on a date, where the date and
> time stamp are the exact same for multiple records, how does SQL
> output the data?
> At random... or does it look at the primary key?

Generally speaking these behaviors are considered "undefined". As such you
cannot rely on it even if it "appears" to always do the same thing and if
you absolutely need the set ordered then you have to include it in the order
clause.

ORDER BY ASC with NULL at the end

Hi,
How can I do an ORDER BY so the records with NULL will be at the end?
normally the order is like this: "NULL, A, B, C", but I woudl want to have
"A, B, C, NULL".
Thanks a lot in advance!
Pieterorder by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
>order by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1
or just use the isnull() function in the select and make null values be show
n
as whatever u want that will be at the end of the list?

ORDER BY ASC with NULL at the end

Hi,
How can I do an ORDER BY so the records with NULL will be at the end?
normally the order is like this: "NULL, A, B, C", but I woudl want to have
"A, B, C, NULL".
Thanks a lot in advance!
Pieter
order by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1
|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
>order by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1
or just use the isnull() function in the select and make null values be shown
as whatever u want that will be at the end of the list?
sql

ORDER BY ASC with NULL at the end

Hi,
How can I do an ORDER BY so the records with NULL will be at the end?
normally the order is like this: "NULL, A, B, C", but I woudl want to have
"A, B, C, NULL".
Thanks a lot in advance!
Pieterorder by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
>order by case when col1 is null then 1 else 0 end, col1
or just use the isnull() function in the select and make null values be shown
as whatever u want that will be at the end of the list?

Oracle Linked Server poor performance

I am currently querying two databases - One in SQL Server and one Oracle, to find records which are in one but not the other (essentially a reconcilliation) this is working fine in MS Access, using 2 passthrough queries to return the results of the 2 databases, then another query to find the data in one but not the other.

I decided to try the linked server approach as I thought this would give me enhanced performance - but strangely enough when I query the oracle database from MS Access the query takes about 22 seconds - whereas when I query the linked server from SQL Server the same query takes about 55 seconds.

The only difernce I can see is the passthrough query in MS Access is connecting using ODBC, an the linked server is connecting using Microsoft OLE DB Provider for Oracle.

Any ideas would be appreciated

You don't specify how you are querying the Oracle database but I would guess you are using a 4 part name query against the Oracle data source. Try changing your query to use OpenQuery instead. That is also closer to how a pass-through query in Access would execute.

-Sue

|||

Thanks I will give it a go. Is using th 4 part name a bad way to query?

<edit> WOW that is much better thanks very much for your help </edit>

|||

In and of itself, the four part name isn't necessarily a bad thing but you can send the query over to the server to be executed on the remote data source and force more processing, data filtering on the server. So you can push more processing off to the server. Some people have a hard time with Openquery as the flip side is that you aren't sending transact sql - you need to send the sql syntax used by the remote data source, the other database platform. I've found with Oracle data sources, it's generally better to just use Openquery.

-Sue

|||Sue - thanks very much you have been very helpful. My query now runs in under 15 seconds now.

Oracle and SQL query in one rdl

I am currently creating a query wherein all of the records returned
from an SQL Server table will have to be queried against an Oracle
database. The following algorithm describes how I intend to do the
report:
* Get the start and end dates (report parameters)
* Run the following SQL Server query:
select ID from SQL_server_table
where logtime >= startdate
and logtime <= enddate
* For each ID returned from the SQL server table
* Query the Oracle datebase
select info1, info2 from Oracle_table
where id = ID_from_SQL_server
* Report on the SQL_Server.ID, Oracle_info1, Oracle_info2
How should I do that in an SRS?
Thank you so much in advance!Read up on subreports.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
<joychua97@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143818223.627860.28200@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am currently creating a query wherein all of the records returned
> from an SQL Server table will have to be queried against an Oracle
> database. The following algorithm describes how I intend to do the
> report:
> * Get the start and end dates (report parameters)
> * Run the following SQL Server query:
> select ID from SQL_server_table
> where logtime >= startdate
> and logtime <= enddate
> * For each ID returned from the SQL server table
> * Query the Oracle datebase
> select info1, info2 from Oracle_table
> where id = ID_from_SQL_server
> * Report on the SQL_Server.ID, Oracle_info1, Oracle_info2
> How should I do that in an SRS?
> Thank you so much in advance!
>