Accessing jobs in EM

Hello!
I would like to allow non-admin users seeing all jobs (including ones
they do now own) in Enterpise Manager.SQL Profiler displays execution of
exec msdb..sp_help_job when querying job list. According to BOL: ' A user
who is not a member of the sysadmin fixed role can use sp_help_job to view
only the jobs he/she owns.'. I suppose xp_sqlagent_proxy_account wouldn't be
of any help in this case. Is this possible for non-admin users to see all
jobs?
Thanks,
IgorThere is no supported way to do this with Enterprise
Manager. The proxy account doesn't really come in to play
here. The system stored procedures involved in displaying
the job info in Enterprise Manager have checks for job owner
or sysadmin server role membership.
-Sue
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:46:12 -0800, "Igor Marchenko"
<igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hello!
>
> I would like to allow non-admin users seeing all jobs (including ones
>they do now own) in Enterpise Manager.SQL Profiler displays execution of
>exec msdb..sp_help_job when querying job list. According to BOL: ' A user
>who is not a member of the sysadmin fixed role can use sp_help_job to view
>only the jobs he/she owns.'. I suppose xp_sqlagent_proxy_account wouldn't b
e
>of any help in this case. Is this possible for non-admin users to see all
>jobs?
>
>Thanks,
>Igor
>|||Thanks,Sue. I have found another way:
1.. Grant access to MSDB
2.. Add users to the member of TargetServerRole.
Regards,
Igor
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:lvnav0d2r3c3n64s620e9me5o0o7t1pdl6@.
4ax.com...
> There is no supported way to do this with Enterprise
> Manager. The proxy account doesn't really come in to play
> here. The system stored procedures involved in displaying
> the job info in Enterprise Manager have checks for job owner
> or sysadmin server role membership.
> -Sue
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:46:12 -0800, "Igor Marchenko"
> <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>|||Okay but just remember it's not supported though and how
this works with this role depends on what service pack you
are on.
-Sue
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:39:09 -0800, "Igor Marchenko"
<igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks,Sue. I have found another way:
> 1.. Grant access to MSDB
> 2.. Add users to the member of TargetServerRole.
>Regards,
>Igor
>"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
> news:lvnav0d2r3c3n64s620e9me5o0o7t1pdl6@.
4ax.com...
>|||Thanks a lot,Sue.
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:5f5dv0d14fq7ajas3r6qq577is20d0gn57@.
4ax.com...
> Okay but just remember it's not supported though and how
> this works with this role depends on what service pack you
> are on.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:39:09 -0800, "Igor Marchenko"
> <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>

Accessing conditional values in Groups

Hello

I am trying using following in a group footer and it gives me an error!

=Sum(IIF(Fields!COSTCENTRETYPECODE.Value <> "B1502",Fields!BUDGETAMOUNTOYR.Value,0)).

Can anyone please shed some light

Thanks

What exactly is the error message?

Is it about aggregating fields of varying data type? In that case, the following expression should work for you: =Sum(IIF(Fields!COSTCENTRETYPECODE.Value <> "B1502", CDbl(Fields!BUDGETAMOUNTOYR.Value), 0.0))

-- Robert

|||

Thanks Robert.

Casting the value to double solved it! But I still think this is a bug. As this only occurs when the contidion satisfies at some value, otherwise it works fine. For example:

Sum(IIF(Fields!COSTCENTRETYPECODE.Value <> "B1502", Fields!BUDGETAMOUNTOYR.Value, 0.0)) - Give an Error in the text box

But

Sum(IIF(Fields!COSTCENTRETYPECODE.Value <> "XXX", Fields!BUDGETAMOUNTOYR.Value, 0.0)) - Would sum all the amounts.

Data set contains value B1502 as Costcentretype code while XXX is not in the data set. So even though it will not include the amount where this cost centre is found you still got to convert it to double to not get an error. But when the condition never becomes true it will return the sum of the amounts without converting.

Regards

Access Vs SQL Server

Hello!

I am trying to gather information on why MS SQL Server 2000 is a better enterprise level database management system MS Access 2002. There is an article on the Microsoft Technet, but when I try and access the article I get a 404 error. Link is there, but page behind is missing.

http://www.micrsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLAccess.asp

I know the basics, just want stats and facts to back them up.

Thanks...Originally posted by swestenhofer
Hello!

I am trying to gather information on why MS SQL Server 2000 is a better enterprise level database management system MS Access 2002. There is an article on the Microsoft Technet, but when I try and access the article I get a 404 error. Link is there, but page behind is missing.

http://www.micrsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLAccess.asp

I know the basics, just want stats and facts to back them up.

Thanks...

1) Volume of data
2) Scalbility
3) Performance
4) OLAP
5) Security features
6) Easy Query processing
7) Data distribution and replication
8) Job scheduling
9) Programmability

There are lots of reasons like this. Access is good if your data is less than 2GB and depends what you are looking from a database.|||Access is not a database "Server". Thus, if you have a query in Access that joins a parent table with 10,000 rows to a child table with 100,000 to return a filtered set of records consisting of, say 200 rows, Access will transfer all 110,000 records from both tables over your network and then perform the SQL statement on whatever (slow) desktop the user happens to be at.

Under SQL Server, all the calculation is done on the (powerfull quad-processor, RAM out the wazzoo) server, and only the final 200 rows are returned over your network.

In a nutshell, running Access as an Enterprise solution drags a network to its knees.|||Originally posted by blindman
Access is not a database "Server". Thus, if you have a query in Access that joins a parent table with 10,000 rows to a child table with 100,000 to return a filtered set of records consisting of, say 200 rows, Access will transfer all 110,000 records from both tables over your network and then perform the SQL statement on whatever (slow) desktop the user happens to be at.

Under SQL Server, all the calculation is done on the (powerfull quad-processor, RAM out the wazzoo) server, and only the final 200 rows are returned over your network.

In a nutshell, running Access as an Enterprise solution drags a network to its knees.

Thanks all!! This should be good fuel for my client to use... thanks for the help!|||Hey...no one told him about the cost...

What's the differences between a kia and a bentley?|||Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Hey...no one told him about the cost...

What's the differences between a kia and a bentley?

I know the cost differences involved, and the client is aware as well, and in the long run, user connection timeouts and database size limitations may outway the costs based on recovery and migration...

Thanks again!

ACCESS SQL COLUMN DATA TYPE

HELLO

i have an sql server database, with a table an some columns.

how can i get the data type of each column and the lengh define in the database table?

Are you working with SQL Server 2000 or 2005?

|||

sql 2000

|||

Fire up profiler, filter to your spid, and run sp_help on a table. See what SQL Server does. You can copy the code from what SQL Server does and use it for yourself. To start with, check out syscolumns in books online.

|||

Or, you could use the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views to do it:

SELECT *FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.columnsWHERE table_Name =table  

HTH,

Stu