Showing posts with label columns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label columns. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Customized Parameters Area For Reporting Services

Has anyone customized the parameters area to pretty it up and make it more configurable like control number of columns etc?

Or can anyone direct me to a third party component?

Thanks.

I'm attempting to do this as well. I have a lot of params for a storedProc call and want to format it so the area isn't so large. Anyone figure this out yet?|||

Here's another post which may be able to help you.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=409942&SiteID=1

Jarret

sql

Customized Parameters Area For Reporting Services

Has anyone customized the parameters area to pretty it up and make it more configurable like control number of columns etc?

Or can anyone direct me to a third party component?

Thanks.

I'm attempting to do this as well. I have a lot of params for a storedProc call and want to format it so the area isn't so large. Anyone figure this out yet?|||

Here's another post which may be able to help you.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=409942&SiteID=1

Jarret

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Custom sorting

Hi,

I am having a cube with 6 dimensions. One of the columns is of

leave type which has the following:

Business
Vacation
Sick
Casual
Paid
Unpaid
Miscellaneous
Time Off

When I display this on the cube it displays in alphabetically sorted

format. Is there any way I can display it in a customized manner? For e.g. as

displayed above?

Would appreciate if anybody can guide me on how it can be

done.

Thanks and regards

PMNJYou could add an Annotation into Dimension.Annotations property for your dimension display ordinal. Use this property for sorting when you display the dimensions.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Custom Conflict Resolver

Hi All,
I'm using a custom conflict resolver (using stored procedure) for one of any
articles.
I want to determine which columns were in conflict in this stored procedure.
Could you pls point me to some pointers on how to achieve the same.
Thanking you.....
I don't believe this can be done. If you are using column level tracking you
might be able to parse the message returned.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Pinkesh" <Pinkesh@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E9B4BA9-BCCF-4FE6-8EE4-C5A506B87E73@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I'm using a custom conflict resolver (using stored procedure) for one of
any
> articles.
> I want to determine which columns were in conflict in this stored
procedure.
> Could you pls point me to some pointers on how to achieve the same.
> Thanking you.....
>
>
|||Hi Hilary,
Thanks for the prompyt reply.
I'm using Column level tracking for my publication.
Sorry but I didn't understand what you mean by "parse the message returned".
Could you pls help by providing some details regarding it.
Thanking you.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I don't believe this can be done. If you are using column level tracking you
> might be able to parse the message returned.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> "Pinkesh" <Pinkesh@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9E9B4BA9-BCCF-4FE6-8EE4-C5A506B87E73@.microsoft.com...
> any
> procedure.
>
>

Custom Component - Change Data Type

I am developing a custom pipeline component (my first real one) which will handle input columns in a DT_NUMERIC format and convert them to a DT_DATE format. Sort of like the included Data Conversion component, but with some built in business logic. The Data Conversion component puts the converted data in a new column in the output buffer. I would like to keep the data in the same column. So, in my input buffer the column would be of type DT_NUMERIC, but in the output buffer I want to make it DT_DATE.

What is the best approach to do this?

-DarrellUnless you want you component to have to copy data from the input to the ouput you can not do this. There are 2 types of outputs, synchronous and asynchronous. The synchronous one is simple and requires no data copying or column creation (except of course for the new column you would produce of the DT_DATE type). However, because of this you can't change column types and that is why the derived column doesn't allow this. The asynchronous one is complex. You have to create all the output columns and keep them in sync with the input columns and know how to map the input columns to the output columns so that you can copy the data to the correct place. My advise is use a sync output and live with the additional column unless it is absolutely necessary to use and async output.

HTH,
Matt

Friday, February 24, 2012

Custom columns names for custom reports?

Our application allows the customer to change the on-screen field names to his personal requirements (eg Target = 2008 Target). My customer wants his on-screen field names to be reflected the metadata view so he can write reports with his change field names. We have several customers with this application so the field names will change by customer.

How do you do this, can SQL/Server support 2 field names - the original and a preferred display option?

If we change the field names how do we ensure that existing (or future) reports from Reporting Services dynamically pick up the customers preferred field name and any existing (or inherited) reports will continue always run.Question moved to SQL Server Forum.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Custom Aggrigate Functions

I was trying to calculate the Meadian of the group of values (grouped based on some columns). I could not find any standard aggrigate funtion for doing so.

It would be great if I can be able to create my own custom aggrigate functions and use the same in the RunningValues funtion.

It would be even interesting if the user can share code written across reports and report projects, with out the need to copy and paste the same custom function in all the reports.

Rich and very interesting feature would be enabling the developer to use the traditional VS2005 UI to develop his code instead of the mundane text box.

Take a look at the following blog article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/bwelcker/archive/2005/05/10/416306.aspx

Another example (a moving average aggregate implementation for a chart - can be applied similarly for a table or matrix) is shown in one of the samples of the following whitepaper - search for the section about "Moving Average Calculations": http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/MoreSSRSCharts.asp

-- Robert

|||

Robert, Thanks for the reply. I have done some thing similar to the one in the first link.

I am facing a problem with this kind of logic. I get the #Error in the first group footer, in second group footer I get the value, but it is the median value of the first group. It continues like this and last footer has the median value of the previous group footer (missing its own value).

To confrim how the values string is built I did reset the visibility of the hidden column and saw the values building correctly. It accumalates each value row by row and last row in the group (before the footer) has all the values to calculate median. And this holds good for the First Group also.

Am I doing some thing wrong?

The code is below:

Public AucBaseAmtString As String

'Append all the amounts to a string seperated by comma. ex: ,12,322,23,232

'Call this funtion in the hidden column of the table for each row

Public Function AccumulateAucBase(Amt As String) As String
AucBaseAmtString = AucBaseAmtString & "," & Amt
Return AucBaseAmtString
End Function

'Call the Median function in the Group Footer.

Public Function Median() As String
Dim Count As Integer
Dim AucBaseAmts() As String

'Truncate the first comma
If AucBaseAmtString <> "" Then
AucBaseAmtString = Mid(AucBaseAmtString, 2)
End If

'Get the amounts to array
AucBaseAmts = AucBaseAmtString.Split(",")

'Reset the string for the next group
AucBaseAmtString = ""

'Calculate median and return
Count = AucBaseAmts.GetLength(0)
If Count = 0 Then Return "0"
Array.Sort(AucBaseAmts)
If Count Mod 2 = 0 Then
Return CStr((CInt(AucBaseAmts((Count / 2) - 1)) + CInt(AucBaseAmts(Count / 2))) / 2)
Else
Return CStr(AucBaseAmts(Count / 2))
End If
End Function

Custer an index or not?

I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered
Index as follows:
Merchant_Account_ID
DateOfReport
Standard_Entry_Class_Code
This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where
they are going in by Merchant + Data+ Code.
I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought :)
I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as
unique. This would increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
TIA> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as unique. This would
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
Likely. But insert performance will be even better if you can cluster on something which it
monotonically increasing (instead of finding free space using PFS and IAM pages, SQL Server just
navigates the index, find the "end of the table" and there the row goes). Perhaps DateOFReport is,
so you can specify this as the first column in the index?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"_Stephen" <srussell@.electracash.com> wrote in message news:uaNuXscTGHA.5856@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered Index as follows:
> Merchant_Account_ID
> DateOfReport
> Standard_Entry_Class_Code
>
> This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where they are going in by
> Merchant + Data+ Code.
> I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought :)
> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as unique. This would
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
> TIA
>|||yes, removing clustered indexes always increases speed for inserts, and
usually speeds up updates for the key fields.

Custer an index or not?

I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered
Index as follows:
Merchant_Account_ID
DateOfReport
Standard_Entry_Class_Code
This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where
they are going in by Merchant + Data+ Code.
I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought
I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as
unique. This would increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
TIA
> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as unique. This would
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
Likely. But insert performance will be even better if you can cluster on something which it
monotonically increasing (instead of finding free space using PFS and IAM pages, SQL Server just
navigates the index, find the "end of the table" and there the row goes). Perhaps DateOFReport is,
so you can specify this as the first column in the index?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"_Stephen" <srussell@.electracash.com> wrote in message news:uaNuXscTGHA.5856@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered Index as follows:
> Merchant_Account_ID
> DateOfReport
> Standard_Entry_Class_Code
>
> This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where they are going in by
> Merchant + Data+ Code.
> I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought
> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as unique. This would
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
> TIA
>
|||yes, removing clustered indexes always increases speed for inserts, and
usually speeds up updates for the key fields.

Custer an index or not?

I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered
Index as follows:
Merchant_Account_ID
DateOfReport
Standard_Entry_Class_Code
This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where
they are going in by Merchant + Data+ Code.
I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought
I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as
unique. This would increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
TIA> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as unique. This wo
uld
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
Likely. But insert performance will be even better if you can cluster on som
ething which it
monotonically increasing (instead of finding free space using PFS and IAM pa
ges, SQL Server just
navigates the index, find the "end of the table" and there the row goes). Pe
rhaps DateOFReport is,
so you can specify this as the first column in the index?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"_Stephen" <srussell@.electracash.com> wrote in message news:uaNuXscTGHA.5856@.TK2MSFTNGP11.ph
x.gbl...
>I see this as potential problem. I have Indexed columns for a Clustered In
dex as follows:
> Merchant_Account_ID
> DateOfReport
> Standard_Entry_Class_Code
>
> This would repage my index on the daily insert of say 300+ returns where t
hey are going in by
> Merchant + Data+ Code.
> I am finding a few of these, not as many as I thought
> I want to remove the clustered aspect of the index, and still leave it as
unique. This would
> increase my insert performance wouldn't it?
> TIA
>|||yes, removing clustered indexes always increases speed for inserts, and
usually speeds up updates for the key fields.