Filter by parameter value

Is this possible? I searched and couldnt find a solution that would
allow me to filter my results by a paramter value that I want the user
to be able to enter. My filtering works fine when entering in a numeric
value in manually but not when running it by the parameter. I get the
following error message: 'Fail to Evaluate
FilterExpression/FilterValues'Most likely the data types of the filter expression and the filter value
expression don't match.
Please try something similar to this:
Filter expression:
=CInt(Fields!SomeField.Value)
Filter value expression:
=CInt(Parameters!SomeParameter.Value)
The important part is the CInt() function call which will ensure that you
are comparing values of identical data types. More information on data type
conversion functions can be found on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vblr7/html/vagrptypeconversion.asp
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Brent" <Brent.Raymond@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126284534.290617.315760@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is this possible? I searched and couldnt find a solution that would
> allow me to filter my results by a paramter value that I want the user
> to be able to enter. My filtering works fine when entering in a numeric
> value in manually but not when running it by the parameter. I get the
> following error message: 'Fail to Evaluate
> FilterExpression/FilterValues'
>

File Group backups and restores

We have a situation where a large DB(150GB) has mostly static data in it. We were considering a filegroup solution that locates the static data in one(or more) files and the dynamic content is stored in another but it seems that any file/filegroup restore requires a transaction log restore to complete the database. We don't have any transactional requirements, in fact they weren't even dumping them till I arrived and restoring them could undo changes to the data. The app is a warehouse where any lost data would be reloaded. The other alternative is separate databases. Anyone have any ideas or suggestions?So what exactly is the question<g>. A lot of people don't bother backing
up DW's if they can easily redo the data from scratch.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"jeff ericson" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C5F4B6A-F8A3-404A-BD26-F9245E061D80@.microsoft.com...
> We have a situation where a large DB(150GB) has mostly static data in it.
We were considering a filegroup solution that locates the static data in
one(or more) files and the dynamic content is stored in another but it seems
that any file/filegroup restore requires a transaction log restore to
complete the database. We don't have any transactional requirements, in
fact they weren't even dumping them till I arrived and restoring them could
undo changes to the data. The app is a warehouse where any lost data would
be reloaded. The other alternative is separate databases. Anyone have any
ideas or suggestions?|||Transaction log backups are required to bring the Filegroup back into sync
with the other filegroups. IF there have been no transactions since the
filegroup was backed up , then logs are not required.
You could just do a transaction log backup after loading new data...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"jeff ericson" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8C5F4B6A-F8A3-404A-BD26-F9245E061D80@.microsoft.com...
> We have a situation where a large DB(150GB) has mostly static data in it.
We were considering a filegroup solution that locates the static data in
one(or more) files and the dynamic content is stored in another but it seems
that any file/filegroup restore requires a transaction log restore to
complete the database. We don't have any transactional requirements, in
fact they weren't even dumping them till I arrived and restoring them could
undo changes to the data. The app is a warehouse where any lost data would
be reloaded. The other alternative is separate databases. Anyone have any
ideas or suggestions?|||We have a similar situation where I work and I'm not sure I understand
the solution you propose. We have a 120GB database. Some of the data
has become static and we are going to move that data (approx 50GB) to
a new table on a seperate filegroup. Immediately following the move,
we will do a backup of that filegroup, and move it to tape. Now, there
will be no changes to the data on this filegroup. It is old data that
we are only keeping around for research. So, 10 months from now, if
something goes wrong on the database and we have to do a restore, are
you saying that I'll have to apply trans. logs for the past 10 months
in order to get this new filegroup back into sync with the rest of the
database? Surely there must be a better way...
Currently, with everything in one filegroup, we are using simple
recovery model. We run a weekly full backup, with nightly differential
backups. We have no need for up to the minute transaction recovery, so
we aren't currently doing a transaction log backup. We find that this
scenario allows us all the recovery we really need. We would simply
like to move some static data out to a new file, do a one-time backup
of that file, and then continue to backup the primary filegroup much
the same way we have been. Is this not possible? What is the simplest
way to accomplish what we need here?
It would be very helpful if someone would post the steps that should
be taken to maintain this type of backup / restore strategy for
filegroups with static data. I've scoured google groups to no avail.
We are running Windows 2000 Server SP4 and SQL Server 2000 SP3. Thanks
for your posts...
Brandon
bspfantasyleague@.dont.spam.me.hotmail.com
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message news:<OjffuA7zDHA.1688@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> Transaction log backups are required to bring the Filegroup back into sync
> with the other filegroups. IF there have been no transactions since the
> filegroup was backed up , then logs are not required.
> You could just do a transaction log backup after loading new data...
>
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "jeff ericson" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8C5F4B6A-F8A3-404A-BD26-F9245E061D80@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a situation where a large DB(150GB) has mostly static data in it.
> We were considering a filegroup solution that locates the static data in
> one(or more) files and the dynamic content is stored in another but it seems
> that any file/filegroup restore requires a transaction log restore to
> complete the database. We don't have any transactional requirements, in
> fact they weren't even dumping them till I arrived and restoring them could
> undo changes to the data. The app is a warehouse where any lost data would
> be reloaded. The other alternative is separate databases. Anyone have any
> ideas or suggestions?|||My problem was that after restoring the file group backup, the database was inaccessible until I applied a transaction log backup. Any attempts to access was met with the message indicating the database is in the middle of a restore. In my case, restoring the transaction logs applied transactions I did not want applied. My question is can you selctivily restore file grouops without having to do a transaction log restore afterwards?