I've created a data processing extension that retrieves data from a
particular table based on the parameters given by the end-user. Of course
the tables do not have the same columns, so creating the report in the report
designer has been problematic. So far I've found one possible solution,
generating the rdl dynamically, similar to what is done in the "Ad hoc"
sample. I have been unable to successfully tie the dynamically generated rdl
to my data extension. I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right
direction.Sorry I forgot to include the following information.
RS 2000 Sp2
VB.NET
"Tamichan" wrote:
> I've created a data processing extension that retrieves data from a
> particular table based on the parameters given by the end-user. Of course
> the tables do not have the same columns, so creating the report in the report
> designer has been problematic. So far I've found one possible solution,
> generating the rdl dynamically, similar to what is done in the "Ad hoc"
> sample. I have been unable to successfully tie the dynamically generated rdl
> to my data extension. I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right
> direction.
Showing posts with label particular. Show all posts
Showing posts with label particular. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Daniel Reib, Please Help with installation error
On one particular server, when installing Reporting Services I keep getting
"Failure Compiling WMI registration file"
What is the problem and how can I resolve it.
Thank you.
--Hmm, not really sure what would cause this. Can you run setup, when it
fails, but before you cancel, run mofcomp on reportingservices.mof. Perhaps
this will give a more detailed error message.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Richard Cranium" <mgreco40@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeDqOZBnEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> On one particular server, when installing Reporting Services I keep
getting
> "Failure Compiling WMI registration file"
> What is the problem and how can I resolve it.
> Thank you.
> --
>
>
"Failure Compiling WMI registration file"
What is the problem and how can I resolve it.
Thank you.
--Hmm, not really sure what would cause this. Can you run setup, when it
fails, but before you cancel, run mofcomp on reportingservices.mof. Perhaps
this will give a more detailed error message.
--
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Richard Cranium" <mgreco40@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeDqOZBnEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> On one particular server, when installing Reporting Services I keep
getting
> "Failure Compiling WMI registration file"
> What is the problem and how can I resolve it.
> Thank you.
> --
>
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Daily file processing help
Hello DBA's:
I need to extract a particular file from our AS 400 system on a daily basis and do some processing on it. Also I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been added/updated since the initial load.
Here is the approach and possible implementation.
Approach
I have the DB2 source data containing 10 columns (Col1 to Col5 together form the key) and the rest are attributes. I am interested only in the key and two attributes. So I load my table with only Col1 to Col7 ( 5 for key and the two attributes). I then do my processing on this table.
Here is the implementation given by a member of dbforums -
You'll then have to deal with 3 potential actions,
INSERT: New records on the file.
DELETES: Records that don't exists.
UPDATES: Records that are on the file, but attributes have changed.
You had given me this code template.
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
SELECT * FROM myTable99
SELECT * FROM myTable00
GO
--DO DELETES FIRST (My comment - Before deleting, I want to copy the rows that I am going to delete on a separate table to maintain history. Then I want to delete from a). I don't get the logic. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =. why the where clause condition)
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- INSERT (My comment - I don't get the logic of the where. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =)
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable00 a
LEFT JOIN myTable99 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- UPDATE
UPDATE a
SET Col3 = b.Col3
, Col4 = b.Col4
, Col5 = b.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
INNER JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
AND ( a.Col3 <> b.Col3
OR a.Col4 <> b.Col4
OR a.Col5 <> b.Col5)
GO
----
Can anybody look at My comments and answer them or revise this code template if need be?
Brett Kaiser - I sent you an e-mail on this. Can you respond to it when time permits.
ThanksVivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||Brett,
Yes it works. Sorry about that friend. I should have tested it in QA before. Thanks. Just a one more thing - I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been updated/inserted. My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek
1. Instead of deleting the row first, I have to move that row to a history table and then delete it. So is this correct for Delete -
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
INSERT INTO myTable99_H(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Then do the delete
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Vivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||I don't worry about it...it's like picking up sand with tweazers...
As long as you keep history of deletes AND updates with triggers, you will always have a total view of the "life" of the data as it "grows up" (and potentially dies - DELETE).
You can then determine with SQL what happened when and where (and if you add the right columns, by whom).
BUT...
You van look up the COLUMNS_UPDATED syntax in the Trigger
I don't use it, so sorry...
Go to BOL and look up CREATE TRIGGER in the index...
BUT...I'm perfectly happy with my method of tracking and retaining history...|||Brett,
I agree that your method is good. I would do the same.
My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. That is the records with NO CHANGE shouldn't undergo any processing. Only those that have been updated/inserted should be processed.
Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek|||OK, So you're saying, any rows that are identical you want to bypass?|||Yes. Any rows that are identical should be bypassed. I have already done the processing on these rows. So I don't want to do it again. Only updates/inserts should be processed.|||And DELETES...
But if Col1 and 2 or Key
and in the update I say col3 <> col3
Or col4 <> col4
isn't the extension of the col6 <> col6
or col7 <> col7
You're losing me...
Because that would do what you're asking...|||Brett,
Let me make it simple...
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL --UPDATED
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL -- --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
--This was my initial load...I check if Col4 or Col5 or Col6 (Name fields) are present in a Name file containing a list of names. If they are then I output the record plus the Name record from the Name file into a different table. That is my processing. I have a stored proc that does this. So now during the day this file gets updated in the source system. So the next day what I have is -
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Select * FROM myTable00.
I compare this with myTable99, do the deletes,updates and inserts like you said to get the appropriate contents of Table00 to Table99. Are you with me till this point. So now my Table99 next day looks like -
1','1','a','b','c' --NO CHANGE (So today I don't have to check this record with the Name file.)
'1','2','x','y','z' -- UPDATE ( I have to check this record with Name File)
'1','3','g','h','i' --NO CHANGE (No check. If I check and output with Name record then duplicate row)
'2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT (Check)
Have I made it clear now?
Let me know what you think. Appreciate your help.
Vivek|||Originally posted by vivek_vdc
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Clear as mud...but I've got way too much time invested...
You can't do that..see the bold...you're pk is col1 and col2...they can'r appear more than once like your sample suggestions...
again, unless it's too murky in here...
I need to extract a particular file from our AS 400 system on a daily basis and do some processing on it. Also I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been added/updated since the initial load.
Here is the approach and possible implementation.
Approach
I have the DB2 source data containing 10 columns (Col1 to Col5 together form the key) and the rest are attributes. I am interested only in the key and two attributes. So I load my table with only Col1 to Col7 ( 5 for key and the two attributes). I then do my processing on this table.
Here is the implementation given by a member of dbforums -
You'll then have to deal with 3 potential actions,
INSERT: New records on the file.
DELETES: Records that don't exists.
UPDATES: Records that are on the file, but attributes have changed.
You had given me this code template.
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
SELECT * FROM myTable99
SELECT * FROM myTable00
GO
--DO DELETES FIRST (My comment - Before deleting, I want to copy the rows that I am going to delete on a separate table to maintain history. Then I want to delete from a). I don't get the logic. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =. why the where clause condition)
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- INSERT (My comment - I don't get the logic of the where. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =)
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable00 a
LEFT JOIN myTable99 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- UPDATE
UPDATE a
SET Col3 = b.Col3
, Col4 = b.Col4
, Col5 = b.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
INNER JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
AND ( a.Col3 <> b.Col3
OR a.Col4 <> b.Col4
OR a.Col5 <> b.Col5)
GO
----
Can anybody look at My comments and answer them or revise this code template if need be?
Brett Kaiser - I sent you an e-mail on this. Can you respond to it when time permits.
ThanksVivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||Brett,
Yes it works. Sorry about that friend. I should have tested it in QA before. Thanks. Just a one more thing - I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been updated/inserted. My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek
1. Instead of deleting the row first, I have to move that row to a history table and then delete it. So is this correct for Delete -
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
INSERT INTO myTable99_H(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Then do the delete
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Vivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||I don't worry about it...it's like picking up sand with tweazers...
As long as you keep history of deletes AND updates with triggers, you will always have a total view of the "life" of the data as it "grows up" (and potentially dies - DELETE).
You can then determine with SQL what happened when and where (and if you add the right columns, by whom).
BUT...
You van look up the COLUMNS_UPDATED syntax in the Trigger
I don't use it, so sorry...
Go to BOL and look up CREATE TRIGGER in the index...
BUT...I'm perfectly happy with my method of tracking and retaining history...|||Brett,
I agree that your method is good. I would do the same.
My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. That is the records with NO CHANGE shouldn't undergo any processing. Only those that have been updated/inserted should be processed.
Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek|||OK, So you're saying, any rows that are identical you want to bypass?|||Yes. Any rows that are identical should be bypassed. I have already done the processing on these rows. So I don't want to do it again. Only updates/inserts should be processed.|||And DELETES...
But if Col1 and 2 or Key
and in the update I say col3 <> col3
Or col4 <> col4
isn't the extension of the col6 <> col6
or col7 <> col7
You're losing me...
Because that would do what you're asking...|||Brett,
Let me make it simple...
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL --UPDATED
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL -- --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
--This was my initial load...I check if Col4 or Col5 or Col6 (Name fields) are present in a Name file containing a list of names. If they are then I output the record plus the Name record from the Name file into a different table. That is my processing. I have a stored proc that does this. So now during the day this file gets updated in the source system. So the next day what I have is -
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Select * FROM myTable00.
I compare this with myTable99, do the deletes,updates and inserts like you said to get the appropriate contents of Table00 to Table99. Are you with me till this point. So now my Table99 next day looks like -
1','1','a','b','c' --NO CHANGE (So today I don't have to check this record with the Name file.)
'1','2','x','y','z' -- UPDATE ( I have to check this record with Name File)
'1','3','g','h','i' --NO CHANGE (No check. If I check and output with Name record then duplicate row)
'2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT (Check)
Have I made it clear now?
Let me know what you think. Appreciate your help.
Vivek|||Originally posted by vivek_vdc
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Clear as mud...but I've got way too much time invested...
You can't do that..see the bold...you're pk is col1 and col2...they can'r appear more than once like your sample suggestions...
again, unless it's too murky in here...
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Cutomizing Exported Excel tabs
Hi All
I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I wish
to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel attachment.
The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
etc....
Is there any way to achieve this ?
ThanksSorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
customizing the sheet names.
It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All
> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
wish
> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
attachment.
> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
> etc....
> Is there any way to achieve this ?
> Thanks|||Robert
Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the ability
to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty pointless.
I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The file
contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I can't
name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off on
the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
Thanks
Phill
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
> customizing the sheet names.
> It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All
>> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
>> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
> wish
>> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
> attachment.
>> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
>> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
>> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
>> etc....
>> Is there any way to achieve this ?
>> Thanks
>
>|||I use the document map facility to get aroung this. It exports as the front
sheet of the excel file and clicking on each title takes you to the correct
sheet.
"news.microsoft.com" <pcarter_NOT_AT_SPAM_bellpotter.com.au> wrote in
message news:ueUeHQPBFHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Robert
> Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
> Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the
> ability to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty
> pointless.
> I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The
> file contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I
> can't name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
> One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
> pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off
> on the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
> Thanks
> Phill
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
>> customizing the sheet names.
>> It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All
>> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I
>> have
>> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
>> wish
>> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
>> attachment.
>> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
>> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
>> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
>> etc....
>> Is there any way to achieve this ?
>> Thanks
>>
>|||I agree with you Phill... my company likes seamless transitions. Reporting
Services would've been the easiest solution if we had control on the
sheetnames.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is included in the SP2 that's going
to be realeased soon (mid-April last I read). I cannot see the funcitonal
enhancements list because it is in the beta site which I don't have access
to.
Pete
"news.microsoft.com" wrote:
> Robert
> Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
> Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the ability
> to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty pointless.
> I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The file
> contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I can't
> name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
> One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
> pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off on
> the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
> Thanks
> Phill
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
> > customizing the sheet names.
> > It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
> >
> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >
> >
> > "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
> >> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
> > wish
> >> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
> > attachment.
> >> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
> >> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
> >> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
> >> etc....
> >>
> >> Is there any way to achieve this ?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I wish
to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel attachment.
The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
etc....
Is there any way to achieve this ?
ThanksSorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
customizing the sheet names.
It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All
> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
wish
> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
attachment.
> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
> etc....
> Is there any way to achieve this ?
> Thanks|||Robert
Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the ability
to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty pointless.
I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The file
contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I can't
name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off on
the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
Thanks
Phill
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
> customizing the sheet names.
> It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All
>> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
>> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
> wish
>> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
> attachment.
>> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
>> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
>> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
>> etc....
>> Is there any way to achieve this ?
>> Thanks
>
>|||I use the document map facility to get aroung this. It exports as the front
sheet of the excel file and clicking on each title takes you to the correct
sheet.
"news.microsoft.com" <pcarter_NOT_AT_SPAM_bellpotter.com.au> wrote in
message news:ueUeHQPBFHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Robert
> Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
> Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the
> ability to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty
> pointless.
> I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The
> file contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I
> can't name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
> One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
> pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off
> on the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
> Thanks
> Phill
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
>> customizing the sheet names.
>> It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All
>> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I
>> have
>> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
>> wish
>> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
>> attachment.
>> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
>> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
>> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
>> etc....
>> Is there any way to achieve this ?
>> Thanks
>>
>|||I agree with you Phill... my company likes seamless transitions. Reporting
Services would've been the easiest solution if we had control on the
sheetnames.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is included in the SP2 that's going
to be realeased soon (mid-April last I read). I cannot see the funcitonal
enhancements list because it is in the beta site which I don't have access
to.
Pete
"news.microsoft.com" wrote:
> Robert
> Can it be moved off the consideration list onto the must do list?
> Providing the functionality to output to multiple sheets without the ability
> to dynamically name those sheets makes multiple sheets pretty pointless.
> I have one report that generates an Excel file for state managers. The file
> contains a seperate sheet for each consultant in their state. As I can't
> name the sheets from RS all they see is Sheet1, Sheet2, etc...
> One of these files has over 200 sheets and the generic naming is a major
> pain in the butt. Due to this problem most of the managers won't sign-off on
> the costs for developing/deploying RS at our site.
> Thanks
> Phill
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OA99z8MBFHA.3924@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Sorry, there is no property in the RDL that would allow you to achieve
> > customizing the sheet names.
> > It is under consideration for inclusion in a future release.
> >
> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >
> >
> > "PR" <PR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:FEDD440A-49E9-4F2F-9DA3-08CC995E2D7B@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> I have a very simple report that is grouped on a particular field. I have
> >> also set the "Page Break at end property" set to true for this group. I
> > wish
> >> to set up a subscription that will email this report as an excel
> > attachment.
> >> The excel export shows the records of each group in a separate sheet -
> >> Exactly the way I need. What I also want is that the tabs of each sheet
> >> should show the group field name as its name instead of sheet1, sheet2
> >> etc....
> >>
> >> Is there any way to achieve this ?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)