and thats what gets written to the flatfile destination.
i want SSIS to preserve the column order and write it as col1,col2,col3,col4
instead of what is happening now and it gets written as col2,col4,col3....
i am running sql2k5 and SSIS with sp2
is this a bug is there a solution for this or change the order of the columns for the flat file destination
I have a table where I added several header rows above the details row and increased the row heights to 0.4in. The row height looks fine in preview, but when I export to Excel, it is as if I had not increased the row height. I have found through trial and error that if I place a textbox below my table and position it so that it is under the rightmost column of my table, then I get my desired row heights in Excel. If I remove the textbox or if it is not under the rightmost column then the row heights revert back to their original size. The textbox can be empty and still has the desired effect. i am using SQL Server 2008 RTM and VS 2008 SP1.
I am familiar with the ALTER TABLE syntax that can be used to add columns to an existing table, but the columns are appended to the end of the table. Enterprise Manager allows you to insert a column in the desired place in the table, but I suspect that behind the scenes it creates a temp table with the new structure, drops the old version of the table and renames the temp table to the orginal table name (I could be wrong on this).
Is there a way to insert a new column in a specific place in a table using SQL rather than EM?
Is there a dynamic management view or system procedure which I can use to find out what columns are in an index, what columns are as an INCLUDE in the index and whether or not the column(s) are ascending or descending. This is excluding the utilities I already know about below:
sys.indexes sys.index_columns sp_helpindex dm_db_index_physical_stats dm_db_index_operational_stats I only ask because it is a pain to look through the sys.indexes and sys.index_columns tables every time I want to know about what columns are in the index created. I also know that scripting the index would give me the information I need but there must be a better way.
Hi, I am using MS SQL Server 2005 9.00.1399.00. I am trying to make a PivotReport. Everything is fine, but the columns are are ordered alphabetically, but i want that they are ordered in a specific way. So i just created a new column ProcId in the Query, but how can i order the columns with the new column but display the other values.
I'm unable to specify multiple columns in my order by statement if i use a case statement. Does anyone know why this is, or what syntax would make this work?
Thanks
SELECT .... ORDER BY (CASE Lower(@SortExpression) WHEN 'prodname' THEN prodname, prodprice WHEN 'prodsize' THEN prodsize, prodname WHEN 'prodprice' THEN prodprice, prodname Else prodcompany, prodname END)
According to BOL, columns in an ORDER BY clause do not have to be in the SELECTcolumn list unless the SELECT includes DISTINCT, or the UNION operator.Is this a SQL Server thing, or SQL standard behavior? That is, if I were to writeabsolutely pure SQL-92, must columns in the ORDER BY clause be present in the SELECTlist?
I have 2 columns in a table namely ColA and ColB.all DML operations are through views n every view has Where clause i.e where ColA=€?€? with check option . All most all my DML queries are using where clause on ColB Where ColB=€?€?
Now my question is I have a clusted index on both ColA and ColB.in which order I have to create cluster index . i.e ColA ASC,ColB ASC or ColB ASC,ColA ASC.
Is there any performance gain we can achieve with their order
I have a report that displays data based on the last 12 months. Is there a way I can order the columns (header and data) based on the month it was run. eg. If I were to run the report in March, I want the columns to be ordered like this:
MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC, JAN, FEB
If run the report in April, I want the columns to be ordered like this:
APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC, JAN, FEB, MAR
So, the columns in the report are always ordered (12 months backward) based on the month it was run.
I am relatively new to complex queries and need creating a query using a CASE in order to update columns to be either A or B. A few things about this is that I am joining tables from linked servers as well. This is the last part. I execute the query and receive the error:
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'from'.
select (select FirstName from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as supervisorFirstName, (select LastName from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as supervisorLastName, (select PersonID from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as SupervisorEmployeeID,
In my SSIS package I have a text file source that I am mapping to a destination table. I have an error component that logs any row level errors and have noticed that it is not logging the correct field. I know this because I have a few different sources that submit the same files and have looked at the source of both. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE in the one that works versus the one that does not is that 2 of the 25+ columns are switched. I would not think this would matter because field A in the text file is mapped to field A in the database.
Does the order in which the fields come into the SSIS package matter?
Here is the situation. I have created a package that takes 50 columns from a comma delimited flat file. I then validate and clean the data. Next I add two columns that were not in the original source file. These two columns need to be in the 5th and 9th column position when the file is then re-written to a text file. How do i get those two columns to write out in the desired order? Any ideas?
I need to create a number of flat files, all with the same layout and sourced from the the same table, but with different criteria.
The first set of (three) flat files file is created out of a simple Conditional Split transformation: If Source Table row number > 40,000 route to File 3; if row number > 20,000, route to file 2, otherwise route to file 1. This gives me 20,000 rows in files 1 & 2 and the remainder in file 3.
I also want to create a fourth flat file by joining the Source Table with a sample table and selecting only those rows where the Customer numbers match. I'm currently doing this in two stages: An Execute SQL Task performs the join and inserts the selected rows into a Destination table (identical layout to source table), and then a simple data flow moves the rows from the Destination table into the fourth flat file.
My problem is that the order of the columns in the first three flat files is different from the fourth file. I've tried creating the fourth flat file with a single data flow using a Merge Join transformation which didn't work because the tables aren't sorted in the correct sequence, and I couldn't get an OLE DB Command transformation to work either.
I'm not sure why the column order of the 4th file should be different seeing as how its contents are sourced from the same Source table, but is there a cunning way of setting this up so that the columns end up in the same order?
This appears to be a change in behaviour between SQL 2000 & 2005. Can anyone confirm?
We have two tables with same schema but different column orders. In Sql 2000, the statement
Insert Into table1 select * from table2
appears to map the column names between the two tables. There is one column out of order, however Sql 2000 doesn't seem to care and correctly inserts the data.
In Sql 2005 the behaviour is to return the columns in the order of table2, rather than mapping column names. This results in incorrect values being added to the columns. (Column shift)
The Sql 2005 behaviour seems to be correct, and select * is bad practice anyway, however I would like to confirm why this was changed and whether there is a service pack/hotfix in 2000 that would have the same result.
We are running compatibility mode in Sql 2005 v9.0.3042.
Is there a way to permanently change the order of the columns in Job Activity Monitor?
I'd like to move Duration to the right of Step Name, but this only lasts so long as I have JAM open. Once I close it and re-open, JAM goes back to its default column order. Google gives me nothing but the temporary "drag and drop" method that I already know about.
In SQL 2012.A query that joins 2 table, with order by clause doesn't get sorted and the result set is not ordered. This happens when some of the columns in the where criteria are in a unique index which is the index that is used for the join between the 2 tables, and all the columns in the unique index are in the where criteria.In the query plan there is no component for sort.The work around was to drop the unique index, or change it to a non-unique index. Once this was done, the execution plan was changed to add the sort component (even when the index was changed to non-unique and the join was still using this index).
I'm reading values from a named range within an Excel spreadsheet using the Excel ODBC driver. If I ask for all columns within a range, using e.g. select * from 'named range', does the driver ensure that the returned rowset has the same column and row ordering as in the spreadsheet? In other words, if a named range on a spreadsheet is the block of cells:
name age
richard 54
jemima 27
I want to make sure that my returned rowset is not going to be:
age name
jemima 27
richard 54
I know that proper databases do not guarantee the order of returned values (unless you specify it) but since Excel is a fixed view of data I was hoping that a returned rowset of values would retain their spreadsheet ordering.
I am really puzzled by an apparent difference between table index key column order and its statistics order. I was under understanding that index statistics mirror index definition. However, in my db 2470 index ordinal definitions match statistics definition but 66 do not. I also can reproduce such discrepancy in 2008 R2, 2012 and 2014.
As per definition,
stats_column_id int
1-based ordinal within set of stats columns
This script duplicates this for me.
BEGIN TRAN GO use tempdb GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[ItemProperties]( [itmID] [int] NOT NULL, [cpID] [smallint] NOT NULL, [ipuID] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[Code] ....
The result I get is this:
object_id      stats_name                                     stats_column_list 1525580473 PK_ItemProperties_itmID_ipuID_cpID itmID, cpID, ipuID,
and
object_id      index_name                                     index_column_list 1525580473 PK_ItemProperties_itmID_ipuID_cpID itmID, ipuID, cpID,
Also a query I used to discover this in my db is:
WITH stat AS ( SELECT s.object_id ,s.name as stats_name ,( SELECT c.name + ', ' as [data()] FROM sys.stats_columns as sc
Case: Exporting Report to PDF/Printing/TIFF Report: Contains 1 table with 19 Columns. 1 column is static, the other 18 are visible at the users descretion. Report when printed/exported to pdf spans 2 pages naturally, 16 on the first page, 3 on the second, and the column widths have been adjusted to provide a perfect page span .
User A elects to hide two of the columns, and show the rest. The report complies and the viewable version is perfect, the excel export is perfect.. the PDF export on the first page causes every fith column, starting with the last column that was hidden to be expanded to take up additional width. On the spanned page, it renders the first column on that page correctly, then there is a white space gap equal to the width of the hidden columns and then the rest of the cells show with the last column expanded to take up the same width that the original 2 columns were going to take up, plus its width.
We have tried several different settings to see if it helps this issue or makes it worse. So far cangrow/canshrink/keep together have made no impact. It is not possible to increase the page size due to limited page size selection availablility for the client. There are far too many combinations of what the user can elect to show or hide to put together different tables to show and hide on the same report to remove this effect.
Any help or suggestion on this issue would be appreciated
Finding the "pieces of information" I need to successfully install the SQL Server Express edition is so complex. Uninstalls do "not" really uninstall completely, leading to failure of SQL install. Can you suggest a thorough, one-stop site for directions for the order of app uninstalls and then the order for app installs for the following...
SQL Server Express edition
Visual Studios 2005
Jet 4.0 newest upgrade
.Net Framework 2.0 (or should I use 3.0)
VS2005 Security upgrade
Anything else I need for just creating a database for my VS2005 Visual Basic project?
I was trying to use MS Access as my backend db but would like to try SQL Express
In SQL sERVER 2008, I have two fields - Depatment and Employees. I need to sort the result set by employee number ascending order, with following exception
1)when department number = 50 - the preferred order is Employee # - 573 followed by 551-572 (employee # belong to Dept 50 = 551-573)
2)When Department number = 20 – the preferred sort order is Employee # 213-220, followed by Employee # 201-213 (employee # belong to Dept 20 = 201-220)
I never paid much attention to this before but I noticed this today in a new table I was creating.
For tables defined in the tabular model the table properties have something like SELECT Blah FROM TableName ORDER BY Blah Then in the tabular model the table's data is in the same order it was ordered by in the data source for the table.
I have a date table I setup and I noticed it is NOT respecting the sort order.
I have it sorted by DateID which sorts with the oldest date first and newest date as last row.However, the table that is imported and stored in the data model is not in that order.
I can of course manually sort the rows in BIDS/DataTools, but I find this discrepancy odd.
Would this have negative impacts on the EARLIER function for example if the data rows are not in the order specified?
INSERT INTO PurchaseOrder (PurchaseOrderDate, SupplierID) VALUES(@date, @SupplierID)
END
SET @POno = @@IDENTITY
RETURN
However, how do i make it that it will automatically adds item under the POno being gernerated? can i use a trigger so that whenever a Insert for PO is success, it automaticallys proceed to adding the items into the table PurcahseOrderItem?
hi basically what i have is 3 text boxes. one for start date, one for end date and one for order id, i also have this bit of SQL SelectCommand="SELECT [Order_ID], [Customer_Id], [Date_ordered], [status] FROM [tbl_order]WHERE (([Date_ordered] >= @Date_ordered OR @Date_ordered IS NULL) AND ([Date_ordered] <= @Date_ordered2 OR @Date_ordered2 IS NULL OR (Order_ID=ISNULL(@OrderID_ID,Order_ID) OR @Order_ID IS NULL))"> but the problem is it does not seem to work! i am not an SQL guru but i cant figure it out, someone help me please! Thanks Jez
Hi, We got a problem. supposing we have a table like this:
CREATE TABLE a ( aId int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, aName string2 NOT NULL ) go ALTER TABLE a ADD CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (aId) go
insert into a values ('bank of abcde'); insert into a values ('bank of abcde'); ... ... (20 times)
select top 5 * from a order by aName Result is: 6Bank of abcde 5Bank of abcde 4Bank of abcde 3Bank of abcde 2Bank of abcde
select top 10 * from a order by aName Result is: 11Bank of abcde 10Bank of abcde 9Bank of abcde 8Bank of abcde 7Bank of abcde 6Bank of abcde 5Bank of abcde 4Bank of abcde 3Bank of abcde 2Bank of abcde
According to this result, user see the first 5 records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 in page 1, but when he tries to view page 2, he still see the records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. This is not correct for users. :eek:
Of course we can add order by aid also, but there are tons of sqls like this, we can't update our application in one shot.
So I ask for your advice here, is there any settings can tell the db use default sort order when the order by column value are the same? Or is there any other solution to resolve this problem in one shot?
Hi,guys!I have a table below:CREATE TABLE rsccategory(categoryid NUMERIC(2) IDENTITY(1,1),categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY(categoryid))Then I do:INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('url')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('document')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('book')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('software')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('casus')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('project')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('disert')Then SELECT * FROM rsccategory in ,I can get a recordeset with the'categoryid' in order(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)But If I change the table definition this way:categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL UNIQUE,The select result is in this order (3,5,7,2,6,4,1),and 'categoryname 'in alphabetic.Q:why the recordset's order is not the same as the first time since'categoryid' is clustered indexed.If I change the table definition again:categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL UNIQUE CLUSTEREDthe result is the same as the first time.Q:'categoryname' is clustered indexed this time,why isn't in alphabeticorder?I am a newbie in ms-sqlserver,or actually in database,and I do havesought for the answer for some time,but more confused,Thanks for yourkind help in advance!
Hi, We got a problem. supposing we have a table like this:
CREATE TABLE a ( aId int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, aName string2 NOT NULL ) go ALTER TABLE a ADD CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (aId) go
insert into a values ('bank of abcde'); insert into a values ('bank of abcde'); ... ... (20 times)
select top 5 * from a order by aName Result is: 6 Bank of abcde 5 Bank of abcde 4 Bank of abcde 3 Bank of abcde 2 Bank of abcde
select top 10 * from a order by aName Result is: 11 Bank of abcde 10 Bank of abcde 9 Bank of abcde 8 Bank of abcde 7 Bank of abcde 6 Bank of abcde 5 Bank of abcde 4 Bank of abcde 3 Bank of abcde 2 Bank of abcde
According to this result, user see the first 5 records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 in page 1, but when he tries to view page 2, he still see the records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. This is not correct for users. Of course we can add order by aid also, but there are tons of sqls like this, we can't update our application in one shot. So I ask for your advice here, is there any settings can tell the db use default sort order when the order by column value are the same? Or is there any other solution to resolve this problem in one shot?
I have created view by jaoining two table and have order by clause.
The sql generated is as follows
SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT dbo.UWYearDetail.*, dbo.UWYearGroup.* FROM dbo.UWYearDetail INNER JOIN dbo.UWYearGroup ON dbo.UWYearDetail.UWYearGroupId = dbo.UWYearGroup.UWYearGroupId ORDER BY dbo.UWYearDetail.PlanVersionId, dbo.UWYearGroup.UWFinancialPlanSegmentId, dbo.UWYearGroup.UWYear, dbo.UWYearGroup.MandDFlag, dbo.UWYearGroup.EarningsMethod, dbo.UWYearGroup.EffectiveMonth
If I run sql the results are displayed in proper order but the view only order by first item in order by clause.
Has somebody experience same thing? How to fix this issue?
