Clarification of execution in SQL2000 SP3A

Hi,
I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it runs
on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
e.g. USE DatabaseA
Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
Thanks
Chris Wood
Alberta Department of Energy
CANADA
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
> SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it
runs
> on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
> e.g. USE DatabaseA
> Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
> The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
> Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
>
No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names inside
the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
compare the output of
EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
and
EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to put
it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
David
|||David,
Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%238Lp6gmTEHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> runs
> No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
> EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names
inside
> the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
> without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
> compare the output of
> EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
> and
> EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
> And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
> database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
> the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to
put
> it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
> David
>
>
|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
>
This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
David
|||David,
Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the one
you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
default database, and look at a table on your default database without
needing to fully qualify it.
e.g. on DatabaseA
exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
@.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
This will work.
Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT to
DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
We are using build 818 for testing.
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
> David
>
|||Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database. It
does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default database
setting.
Chris
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e2yXy9xTEHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the
one
> you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
> default database, and look at a table on your default database without
> needing to fully qualify it.
> e.g. on DatabaseA
> exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
> @.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
> This will work.
> Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT
to
> DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
> We are using build 818 for testing.
> Chris
> "David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O8LPRQyTEHA.808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database.
It
> does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default
database
> setting.
>
Ahh. xp_sendmail executes that query over a different connection created
from within the extended stored procedure, but bound into the same
transaction. Normal rules of name resolution don't apply here, as it
depends entirely on how xp_sendmail creates the second connection and what
database it connects to. Perhaps there was a change to the implementation
of xp_sendmail in SP3.
David
|||Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
|||Vikram,
I thought that this may have been the problem but it is not. We have a
stored procedure in database A that included a xp_sendmail with a query that
ran against a table in database A. Prior to SP3 we did not have to fully
qualify the table in database A. Fully qualifying works for both SP2 and SP3
and that is what we had to do.
Thanks
Chris
"Vikram Jayaram [MS]" <vikramj@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O%23j3ZkNXEHA.328@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
> had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
>
> Vikram Jayaram
> Microsoft, SQL Server
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
>
|||Vikram,
I thought that this may have been the problem but it is not. We have a
stored procedure in database A that included a xp_sendmail with a query that
ran against a table in database A. Prior to SP3 we did not have to fully
qualify the table in database A. Fully qualifying works for both SP2 and SP3
and that is what we had to do.
Thanks
Chris
"Vikram Jayaram [MS]" <vikramj@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O%23j3ZkNXEHA.328@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
> had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
>
> Vikram Jayaram
> Microsoft, SQL Server
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
>
sqlsql

Clarification of execution in SQL2000 SP3A

Hi,
I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it runs
on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
e.g. USE DatabaseA
Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
Thanks
Chris Wood
Alberta Department of Energy
CANADA"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
> SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it
runs
> on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
> e.g. USE DatabaseA
> Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
> The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
> Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
>
No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names inside
the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
compare the output of
EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
and
EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to put
it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
David|||David,
Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%238Lp6gmTEHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> runs
> No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
> EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names
inside
> the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
> without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
> compare the output of
> EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
> and
> EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
> And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
> database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
> the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to
put
> it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
> David
>
>|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
>
This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
David|||David,
Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the one
you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
default database, and look at a table on your default database without
needing to fully qualify it.
e.g. on DatabaseA
exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
@.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
This will work.
Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT to
DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
We are using build 818 for testing.
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
> David
>|||Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database. It
does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default database
setting.
Chris
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e2yXy9xTEHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the
one
> you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
> default database, and look at a table on your default database without
> needing to fully qualify it.
> e.g. on DatabaseA
> exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
> @.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
> This will work.
> Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT
to
> DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
> We are using build 818 for testing.
> Chris
> "David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O8LPRQyTEHA.808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database.
It
> does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default
database
> setting.
>
Ahh. xp_sendmail executes that query over a different connection created
from within the extended stored procedure, but bound into the same
transaction. Normal rules of name resolution don't apply here, as it
depends entirely on how xp_sendmail creates the second connection and what
database it connects to. Perhaps there was a change to the implementation
of xp_sendmail in SP3.
David|||Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Vikram,
I thought that this may have been the problem but it is not. We have a
stored procedure in database A that included a xp_sendmail with a query that
ran against a table in database A. Prior to SP3 we did not have to fully
qualify the table in database A. Fully qualifying works for both SP2 and SP3
and that is what we had to do.
Thanks
Chris
"Vikram Jayaram [MS]" <vikramj@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O%23j3ZkNXEHA.328@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
> had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
>
> Vikram Jayaram
> Microsoft, SQL Server
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
>

Clarification of execution in SQL2000 SP3A

Hi,
I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it runs
on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
e.g. USE DatabaseA
Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
Thanks
Chris Wood
Alberta Department of Energy
CANADA"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
> SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it
runs
> on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
> e.g. USE DatabaseA
> Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
> The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
> Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
>
No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names inside
the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
compare the output of
EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
and
EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to put
it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
David|||David,
Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%238Lp6gmTEHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:e7MpPTmTEHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need some clarification of a situation that we now have when moving to
> > SP3A. If we try and execute a stored procedure from another database it
> runs
> > on the database the stored procedure belongs to.
> >
> > e.g. USE DatabaseA
> > Execute DatabaseB.dbo.upRunsp
> >
> > The sp upRunsp will run on DatabaseB not DatabaseA
> >
> > Is this an effect of cross DB ownership chaining being set off?
> >
> No. This has nothing to do with cross DB ownership chaining. When you
> EXECUTE a procedure using a database-qualified name, the object names
inside
> the procedure are resolved of wrt the procedure's owner. When you run it
> without qualifation, names are resolved wrt your current context.
> compare the output of
> EXECUTE sp_help --displays info about the currentdb.dbo.sysobjects
> and
> EXECUTE master.dbo.sp_help --displays info about master.dbo.sysobjects
> And the only way to run a procedure in another database without a
> database-qualified name is to put it in Master and prefix it with sp_. So
> the only way to have one procedure run against different databases is to
put
> it in Master and prefix it with sp_.
> David
>
>|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
>
This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
David|||David,
Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the one
you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
default database, and look at a table on your default database without
needing to fully qualify it.
e.g. on DatabaseA
exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
@.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
This will work.
Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT to
DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
We are using build 818 for testing.
Chris
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > David,
> >
> > Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
> >
> This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
> David
>|||Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database. It
does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default database
setting.
Chris
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e2yXy9xTEHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> David,
> Just debugged this one better. Under SP2 if the default database is the
one
> you are on you can run xp_sendmail from master, while you are on your
> default database, and look at a table on your default database without
> needing to fully qualify it.
> e.g. on DatabaseA
> exec master..xp_sendmail @.recipients = '...',
> @.query = 'SELECT FROM tablea where
> This will work.
> Under SP3A it gives an ODBC error 208 (42S02) unless I change the SELECT
to
> DatabaseA.dbo.tablea
> We are using build 818 for testing.
> Chris
> "David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:eGGxE0mTEHA.760@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:eTVRjlmTEHA.1472@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > David,
> > >
> > > Did the behaviour change between Gold and SP3A?
> > >
> >
> > This behavior has been like that since at least 6.5.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>|||"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O8LPRQyTEHA.808@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Also. This only works this way if the database is your default database.
It
> does not matter about the permissions of the user just its default
database
> setting.
>
Ahh. xp_sendmail executes that query over a different connection created
from within the extended stored procedure, but bound into the same
transaction. Normal rules of name resolution don't apply here, as it
depends entirely on how xp_sendmail creates the second connection and what
database it connects to. Perhaps there was a change to the implementation
of xp_sendmail in SP3.
David|||Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Vikram,
I thought that this may have been the problem but it is not. We have a
stored procedure in database A that included a xp_sendmail with a query that
ran against a table in database A. Prior to SP3 we did not have to fully
qualify the table in database A. Fully qualifying works for both SP2 and SP3
and that is what we had to do.
Thanks
Chris
"Vikram Jayaram [MS]" <vikramj@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:O%23j3ZkNXEHA.328@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Are all of the objects needed in the same database on the same server? We
> had "cross database ownership" introduced in sp3. Is this checked?
>
> Vikram Jayaram
> Microsoft, SQL Server
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
>

Choose database dinamically

Hello,
Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
to execute one script
ex:
use @.database_name
go
It's possible?
Best regardsAs you probably know, USE does not accept a variable. There might be ways to accomplish what you
want to do, but you don't post what your scenario is...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards|||not really. Not without Dynamic SQL concatenated at run time and executed
via sp_ExecuteSQL
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Hi,
Use the belo sample.
DECLARE @.DBNAME VARCHAR(30)
DECLARE @.SQL NVARCHAR(4000)
SET @.DBNAME = 'TEST'
SET @.SQL = 'USE ' + @.DBNAME + ' SELECT * FROM sysobjects'
EXEC SP_EXECUTESQL @.SQL
--
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards

Choose database dinamically

Hello,
Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
to execute one script
ex:
use @.database_name
go
It's possible?
Best regardsAs you probably know, USE does not accept a variable. There might be ways to
accomplish what you
want to do, but you don't post what your scenario is...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards|||not really. Not without Dynamic SQL concatenated at run time and executed
via sp_ExecuteSQL
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Hi,
Use the belo sample.
DECLARE @.DBNAME VARCHAR(30)
DECLARE @.SQL NVARCHAR(4000)
SET @.DBNAME = 'TEST'
SET @.SQL = 'USE ' + @.DBNAME + ' SELECT * FROM sysobjects'
EXEC SP_EXECUTESQL @.SQL
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards

Choose database dinamically

Hello,
Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
to execute one script
ex:
use @.database_name
go
It's possible?
Best regards
As you probably know, USE does not accept a variable. There might be ways to accomplish what you
want to do, but you don't post what your scenario is...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards
|||not really. Not without Dynamic SQL concatenated at run time and executed
via sp_ExecuteSQL
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||Hi,
Use the belo sample.
DECLARE @.DBNAME VARCHAR(30)
DECLARE @.SQL NVARCHAR(4000)
SET @.DBNAME = 'TEST'
SET @.SQL = 'USE ' + @.DBNAME + ' SELECT * FROM sysobjects'
EXEC SP_EXECUTESQL @.SQL
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:206de01c45933$c3ebc830$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Can you tell me how can i choose one database dinamically
> to execute one script
> ex:
> use @.database_name
> go
> It's possible?
> Best regards

Child packages: Execute them all out of process?

HI, I have some parent parent packages that calls child packages. When I added a bunch of packages, I faced the buffer out of memory error. I then decided to set the child packages property ExecuteOutOfProcess to TRUE. I noticed that the execution time is longer now. Is this a good practice to set the ExecuteOutOfProcess to true? If so, is it normal that the execution time is longer?

Thank you,
Ccote

ccote wrote:

HI, I have some parent parent packages that calls child packages. When I added a bunch of packages, I faced the buffer out of memory error. I then decided to set the child packages property ExecuteOutOfProcess to TRUE. I noticed that the execution time is longer now. Is this a good practice to set the ExecuteOutOfProcess to true? If so, is it normal that the execution time is longer?

Thank you,
Ccote

I don't think there is a any best practice guidance around this. Personally I tend to think if you need to execute them out of process, then do so. otherwise, in proc is fine. I can't think of another rationale for one or the other.

-Jamie

|||

Out of process is slower, but gives you a new process (Obviously!) and this allows a new set of memory. For 32-bit this can be benefical as you get another 2Gb (/3Gb), just for the out of proc package execution host, rather than sharing the memory of the parent. So if you have a high memory requirement and the machine has enough memory to support the two processes taking their own share, then out of proc makes sense, but at the cost of speed.

So what you see is expected. It takes time to setup a new process and allocate it all that memory.

Child Package Fails when called from parent

So I have a parent package that calls another package using the Execute Package Task. When I run the child it runs fine but when I run it from the parent i get this msg...Any ideas?

Error: 0xC00220E4 at Execute VR Account Load: Error 0xC0012050 while preparing to load the package. Package failed validation from the ExecutePackage task. The package cannot run.

Pls take a look at this post to see whether the investigations and solutions there helps. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=241941&SiteID=1

thanks

wenyang

|||

Wenyang,

Thanks for the reply but the solution did not work. I might have found a bug here because the child package uses package configurations and even though I have disabled the package config on the child when I execute it from the parent the output window says that it is trying to load the package configurations. Not sure if this has anything to do with it.

Information: 0x40016040 at VR Load Account: The package is attempting to configure from SQL Server using the configuration string ""localhost.CALLMIS";"[dbo].[SSIS Configurations]";"MISLoads_ServerName";".

Thx

|||

Disregard last msg I posted. It appears the problem was that there was a bad connection guid or something like that still hanging around in the child? I recreated the package and it appears to be working now...

Not my idea of fun...

Checksum computation help

Please execute the script below to understand the problem -

--
create table test(id int, col1 int,col2 varchar(5),col3 datetime)
create table test2(id int, col1 int,col2 varchar(5),col3 datetime)

--id & col1 make up the PK.

insert test values(4,4,'d','02/06/2004')
insert test values(4,4,'e','02/06/2004')

insert test2 values(4,4,'d','02/06/2004')
insert test2 values(4,4,'e','02/06/2004')

select *
from test

select *
from test2

--The rows are identical.
--Script A

select t.*
from test t
join test2 t2 on t2.id=t.id
where CHECKSUM(t.col2,t.col3)<>CHECKSUM(t2.col2,t2.col3)

--The purpose of the above script is to check for any updates in the two tables. It returns two rows. But as you can see both these rows were present in the table before. So I modify the script to -
--SCRIPT B
select t.*
from test t
join test2 t2 on t2.col2=t.col2
where CHECKSUM(t.col3)<>CHECKSUM(t2.col3)

-- In this case no row is returned.This is exactly what I need. The problem - Now execute the script below.

TRUNCATE TABLE TEST
TRUNCATE TABLE TEST2

insert test values(4,4,'d','02/06/2004')
insert test values(4,4,'d','02/01/2004')

insert test2 values(4,4,'d','02/06/2004')
insert test2 values(4,4,'d','02/01/2004')

--Now when I execute script B two rows are returned which is not what I want. Since the rows are identical no row should be returned. So depending on what column changes (col2 or col3), I have to alter the script. I seek advise on the method to calculate checksum. Again the PK is ID and Col1 only.

Thanks

drop table test
drop table test2
go
--Script B is not correct because you have no keys in tables and, of course, it returns rows - col3s are different. There is relation many to many.|||And did you look up CHECKSUM() in BOL?

I know you're trying to accomplish something...but you got me lost..

It's in the same manner as your previous threads...

Can you give us a "big picture" view of what you're trying to accomplish?

I don't mean to offend, but you need to understan what primary keys are for...sounds like your data model is not fitting in quite right with what you're trying to accomplish...|||I think this would give you an idea of the data. Yesterday when I did the processing I had this view of the table -

ID...County...Univ...Dept.....Status

1...A......XYZ...Accounting...Processed - Good
1...A......ABC...Accounting...Processed - Bad
1...A......XYZ...Marketing...Processed - Good
1...B......PQR...HR............Processed - Good
1...C......XXX...HR............Processed - Bad

I have an index on the Status field coz I can see all Bad records on top.

Today I have in my source system -

ID...County...Univ...Dept

1...A......ABC...Accounting
1...A......XYZ...Accounting
1...A......XYZ...Marketing
1...B......PQR...HR
1...C......XXX...HR
2...C......YYY...Training

I want to process only those records that are new/updated since yesterday's version. I get the above records in a separate table and assign a Status to them as 'Not Processed'. I then compare the two tables. And so because of the problem stated before, I end up processing a record that I have processed the previous day.

So how do I go about this problem? Is there a need for another column in here.

Checkpoints problem in parallel tasks

Hi,

I have a master package with a sequence container with around 10 execute package tasks (for child packages), all in parallel. Checkpoints has been enabled in the master package. For the execute package tasks FailParentOnFailure is set to true and for the sequence container FailPackageOnFailure is set to true.

The problem i am facing is as follows. One of the parallel tasks fails and at the time of failure some of the parallel tasks (say set S1) are completed succesfully and few are still in execution (say set S2) which eventually complete successfully. The container fails after all the tasks complete execution and fails the package. When the package is restarted the task which failed is not executed, but the tasks in set S2 are executed.

If FailPackageOnFailure is set to true and whatever be the FailParentOnFailure value for the execute package task, in case of restart the failed package is executed but the tasks in set S2 are also executed.

Please let me know if there is any setting that only the failed task executes on restart.

Thanks in advance

Essentially, you want to track the outcome of parallel execute package tasks, and only re-execute those which have failed. The problem with using checkpoint files to accomplish this, is that checkpoint files don't track the status of parallel containers after the first task failure associated with FailPackageOnFailure happens.

What that means, if you have 10 parallel EPTs (execute package tasks), and any one of them has a task failure, none of the subsequently completed EPT tasks, whether they succeed or fail, have their outcomes written to the checkpoint file. So, on package restart, "post last checkpoint file write" tasks will run again.

An easier approach might be to put a for loop around each EPT, and loop until successful, using a variable scoped at the For Loop as a"Go/No Go" decision maker, and max retry count.

However, if you want to do it in SSIS using a restart mechanism, you could roll your own checkpointing mechanism.

Such a mechanism would mean creating an OnTaskFailed event handler which would track the failed EPT SourceID/SourceName's (read TaskID/TaskName).

Then add an OnPostExecute event handler to determine those EPTs which succeeded by inference (they didn't fail). Add in a final "On Completetion" script task to append the successful TaskIDs to a configuration file which would then be read in automatically on subsequent execution.

Lastly, you'd set the the Disable property on each EPT to something like FINDSTRING(@.SuccessfulTaskIDs,@.System::TaskID,1) > 0. You can do it that way, but its not point and click by any stretch.

Checkpoints

Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in the
transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to reduce
it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
that.
Thanks for the clarification.No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to disk.
The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty pages
themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
interval) directly affects recovery time.
Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
Thanks,
--
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
> Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
> query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in
> the
> transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
> If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to
> reduce
> it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
> that.
> Thanks for the clarification.|||Ryan,
Thanks very much... you're explanation makes it very clear!
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" wrote:

> No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to dis
k.
> The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
> that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
> the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
> those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
> operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty page
s
> themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
> dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
> interval) directly affects recovery time.
> Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
> Thanks,
> --
> Ryan Stonecipher
> Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> "Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Checkpoints

Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in the
transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to reduce
it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
that.
Thanks for the clarification.No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to disk.
The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty pages
themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
interval) directly affects recovery time.
Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
Thanks,
--
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
> Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
> query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in
> the
> transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
> If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to
> reduce
> it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
> that.
> Thanks for the clarification.|||Ryan,
Thanks very much... you're explanation makes it very clear!
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" wrote:
> No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to disk.
> The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
> that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
> the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
> those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
> operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty pages
> themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
> dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
> interval) directly affects recovery time.
> Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
> Thanks,
> --
> Ryan Stonecipher
> Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
> > Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
> > query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in
> > the
> > transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
> >
> > If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to
> > reduce
> > it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
> > that.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.
>
>

Checkpoints

Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in the
transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to reduce
it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
that.
Thanks for the clarification.
No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to disk.
The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty pages
themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
interval) directly affects recovery time.
Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
Thanks,
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
> Do I understand correctly that iIf I execute the CHECKPOINT statement from
> query analyzer for a selected database, all uncommitted transactions in
> the
> transaction log are physically written to the database at that time?
> If so then do I need to manually truncate the log at another time to
> reduce
> it's size. Because I'm assuming the CHECKPOINT does not automatically do
> that.
> Thanks for the clarification.
|||Ryan,
Thanks very much... you're explanation makes it very clear!
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" wrote:

> No, it is CHECKPOINT's job to flush "dirty" (or changed) data pages to disk.
> The "write-ahead log" (WAL) protocol used by SQL Server does not require
> that all pages changed by a transaction are flushed to disk at the time of
> the transaction commit; it only requires that the log records that affect
> those transactions be persisted in the transaction log so that those
> operations can be undone or redone in the case of a crash. The dirty pages
> themselves can be written at the database system's lesiure. The number of
> dirty pages in memory at teh time of a crash (and therefore the CHECKPOINT
> interval) directly affects recovery time.
> Books Online topic "CHECKPOINT" describes its function fairly well.
> Thanks,
> --
> Ryan Stonecipher
> Microsoft Sql Server Storage Engine, DBCC
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Naj Parandah" <NajParandah@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:18484540-E4E0-48FB-A2F0-472231705649@.microsoft.com...
>
>

checking if no record is returned

hi,

I basically want the .net version of rs.eof
does anyone know what the code would be using the execute scalar method?

Thanks>>does anyone know what the code would be using the execute scalar method?

executeScalar returns only one record. so theres no such thing as EOF. you are prbly talking of datareader...you just loop through the datareader using

while dr.read()
 ...
end while

if you want more info, you need to give us more details on what xactly it is that you are trying to do.

hth|||or,

if(dr.HasRows)
{
 while(dr.read())
 {
 // Read some stuff
 }
}
else
{
 // no results were found
}

check values record by record

Consider this scenario.

I have two database in the sql server and consider that i have a query which has 4 tables inner joined.

When i execute the query in the database1 , the query is returning rows, But when i execute the same query in the database2, the query is not retuning rows . I know that the

no rows are returned because of missing data in the database2. But have no idea how to trace what values are missing in the database2. Please note the tables is having a huge

list of records by which manually comparison is painfull. Please consider i dont have any background idea of the values in the tables but just using it. Any help would be

appericated.

I have used the third party tool called sql server comparison tool which gives me the desired result.

http://www.sql-server-tool.com/?src=dtc#nd0

|||

SELECT *

FROM database1.dbo.MyTable

EXCEPT

SELECT *

FROM database2.dbo.MyTable

|||

This EXCEPT command is giving error in sql 2000 . will it work in sql 2005

Check Stored Procedure execution duration

Hello,
I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
result.
Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
Best regards.
You are on the right way, Profiler is exactly the tool you need.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>
|||Hi,
"You are doing right."
Use Profiler - Use the template name " SQLProfilerTSQL_duration" in
profiler. In the filter you can give the procedure names you
have to trace for duration.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>

Check Stored Procedure execution duration

Hello,
I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
result.
Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
Best regards.You are on the right way, Profiler is exactly the tool you need.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>|||Hi,
"You are doing right."
Use Profiler - Use the template name " SQLProfilerTSQL_duration" in
profiler. In the filter you can give the procedure names you
have to trace for duration.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>

Check Stored Procedure execution duration

Hello,
I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
result.
Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
Best regards.You are on the right way, Profiler is exactly the tool you need.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>|||Hi,
"You are doing right."
Use Profiler - Use the template name " SQLProfilerTSQL_duration" in
profiler. In the filter you can give the procedure names you
have to trace for duration.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15bd401c446f7$85765e10$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hello,
> I need to check the duration of execution of some Stored
> Procedures. I dont know when these stored procedures will
> run, so i execute the Profiler to catch these Stored
> Procedures but i dont know if im going to get the desired
> result.
> Am I doing it right or may i do anything else?
> Best regards.
>

Check Sql Before Execute

Hello,
I like to know if there are way's to Get aSql sentences
there are sent to the SqlServer2000 and to check them
before Execute, and could to Change them (like add them
more parts to the WHERE ).
thank's
Eran."Eran A" <eran_@.walla.co.il> wrote in message
news:095001c3c96a$1c7ff4d0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> I like to know if there are way's to Get aSql sentences
> there are sent to the SqlServer2000 and to check them
> before Execute, and could to Change them (like add them
> more parts to the WHERE ).

---

You could use SQL Profiler to capture the SQL as it is being sent for
processing, and modify it. To my knowledge there is no way to capture SQL
"real time" (outside of a stored procedure execution stream), modify it,
then send it on it's way before it executes.
What is it you need to do?
Steve|||hi,
I want to concate string to the Sql before execute, to
force aApplication Sequrity & to remove Sql that are not
supposed to Run . (like RLS ability in Oracle)

quote:

---

>--Original Message--
>"Eran A" <eran_@.walla.co.il> wrote in message
>news:095001c3c96a$1c7ff4d0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>You could use SQL Profiler to capture the SQL as it is

---

being sent for

quote:

---

>processing, and modify it. To my knowledge there is no

---

way to capture SQL

quote:

---

>"real time" (outside of a stored procedure execution

---

stream), modify it,

quote:

---

>then send it on it's way before it executes.
>What is it you need to do?
>Steve
>
>.
>

---

Check Server Disk Space Daily

I know can execute perfmon program to determine disk space on the server.
I would like a simple SQL Server job (SQL Server 2000) I can set up to run
once a day. Check all drives on the server if unused disk space is less than
10% then send alert message.
Please help me with this task.
See if this helps.
Using xp_fixeddrives to Monitor Free Space
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3080501
AMB
"Joe K." wrote:

> I know can execute perfmon program to determine disk space on the server.
> I would like a simple SQL Server job (SQL Server 2000) I can set up to run
> once a day. Check all drives on the server if unused disk space is less than
> 10% then send alert message.
> Please help me with this task.
|||Grab sp_diskspace from here http://www.sqldbatips.com/showcode.asp?ID=4 and
simply insert results into a table and run your check against it.
HTH,
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
"Joe K." <JoeK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C11A458-4317-40F0-A4E5-0C07520C88D5@.microsoft.com...
> I know can execute perfmon program to determine disk space on the server.
> I would like a simple SQL Server job (SQL Server 2000) I can set up to run
> once a day. Check all drives on the server if unused disk space is less
> than
> 10% then send alert message.
> Please help me with this task.