Help importing legacy FoxPro db into SQL 2000

Greetings,
Any help/tips appreciated. I'm charged with importing a legacy FoxPro
database appliction into SQL 2000 and building a new .NET front-end for it.
I've imported .mdb, Excel, text files, other MS SQL data, etc in the past,
but the FoxPro stuff is rather different. I see the .dbf files (which I'm
guessing will import as tables), but when I try to import, the DSN import bo
x
comes up. I try 'Visual FoxPro drivers' but they're not installed. A little
research shows MS stopped bundling FoxPro drivers in MDAC 2.6.
Does anyone have experience with this type of import?
Thanks in advance!
jgHi Johnny,
Download and install the FoxPro and Visual FoxPro OLE DB data provider from
msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/downloads/updates.
When you set up your import you'll want to determine whether you have a
database container (a DBC file is present in the directory where the DBFs
are) or free tables. With a DBC you connect to the DBC and with free tables
you just connect to the directory they are in.
After that it's just like importing any other OLE DB compliant data.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
"johnnyG" <johnnyG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CBE76BA7-C433-4EDD-8C73-123690CAA92E@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings,
> Any help/tips appreciated. I'm charged with importing a legacy FoxPro
> database appliction into SQL 2000 and building a new .NET front-end for
> it.
> I've imported .mdb, Excel, text files, other MS SQL data, etc in the past,
> but the FoxPro stuff is rather different. I see the .dbf files (which I'm
> guessing will import as tables), but when I try to import, the DSN import
> box
> comes up. I try 'Visual FoxPro drivers' but they're not installed. A
> little
> research shows MS stopped bundling FoxPro drivers in MDAC 2.6.
> Does anyone have experience with this type of import?
> Thanks in advance!
> jg|||If the original appliation is pre-VFP, then it's probably not normalized, so
you'll want to re-think the database model as well. I've seen legacy -> SQL
Server ports where this was not done.
"Cindy Winegarden" <cindy_winegarden@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eFWvPxZLGHA.2904@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Johnny,
> Download and install the FoxPro and Visual FoxPro OLE DB data provider
> from msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/downloads/updates.
> When you set up your import you'll want to determine whether you have a
> database container (a DBC file is present in the directory where the DBFs
> are) or free tables. With a DBC you connect to the DBC and with free
> tables you just connect to the directory they are in.
> After that it's just like importing any other OLE DB compliant data.
> --
> Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
> cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
>
> "johnnyG" <johnnyG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CBE76BA7-C433-4EDD-8C73-123690CAA92E@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thanks guys...I downloaded the data provider and found the DBC and managed t
o
successfully import the tables. I'm reviewing the warnings now (some date
data type precision issues), but overall I'm underway. Thanks Cindy.
And JT thanks for the sound advice also...
johnnG
"johnnyG" wrote:

> Greetings,
> Any help/tips appreciated. I'm charged with importing a legacy FoxPro
> database appliction into SQL 2000 and building a new .NET front-end for it
.
> I've imported .mdb, Excel, text files, other MS SQL data, etc in the past,
> but the FoxPro stuff is rather different. I see the .dbf files (which I'm
> guessing will import as tables), but when I try to import, the DSN import
box
> comes up. I try 'Visual FoxPro drivers' but they're not installed. A litt
le
> research shows MS stopped bundling FoxPro drivers in MDAC 2.6.
> Does anyone have experience with this type of import?
> Thanks in advance!
> jg|||Hi Johnny,
In case you haven't figured it out yet, FoxPro Date data types (a date only,
no time) can be "empty" as well as null or having a valid date. SQL Server
doesn't know how to handle these and substitutes 12/31/1899 or 1/1/1900. The
same goes with DateTime data types.
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
cindy_winegarden@.msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com
"johnnyG" <johnnyG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FFFBC100-6D09-41CC-BB40-0452495014D2@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks guys...I downloaded the data provider and found the DBC and managed
> to
> successfully import the tables. I'm reviewing the warnings now (some date
> data type precision issues), but overall I'm underway. Thanks Cindy.
> And JT thanks for the sound advice also...sql

Help Deciding an AV solution

Greetings all,
General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
for SQL . . . any help?
David
Hi
In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
also from Client versions.
Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
"dkon" wrote:

> Greetings all,
> General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> for SQL . . . any help?
> --
> David
|||Thanks for the info John.
I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
solution to go with.
David
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> also from Client versions.
> Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> "dkon" wrote:
|||Hi
If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
the I/O.
John
"dkon" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the info John.
> I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
> another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
> solution to go with.
> --
> David
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
|||John, thanks for the response.
Understood. I was just wondering if anyone had seen differences, as my boss
said he thought Symantec slowed SQL down as compared to McAfee . . . .
David
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
> The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
> the I/O.
> John
> "dkon" wrote:
|||Hi
If configured incorrectly both can slow SQL Server down.
Some people seem to have their favourites.
I would not accept a blanket statement without justification and/or
validation.
John
"dkon" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> John, thanks for the response.
> Understood. I was just wondering if anyone had seen differences, as my boss
> said he thought Symantec slowed SQL down as compared to McAfee . . . .
> --
> David
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
|||ok
thanks
David
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> If configured incorrectly both can slow SQL Server down.
> Some people seem to have their favourites.
> I would not accept a blanket statement without justification and/or
> validation.
> John
> "dkon" wrote:
|||"dkon" <dkon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:119E80D6-6862-4519-B168-14A3445B3033@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings all,
> General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> for SQL . . . any help?
> --
> David
I wouldn't really care since I wouldn't use either on the database files.
(in fact in many environments, I might not use any).
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Help Deciding an AV solution

Greetings all,
General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
for SQL . . . any help?
--
DavidHi
In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
also from Client versions.
Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
"dkon" wrote:
> Greetings all,
> General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> for SQL . . . any help?
> --
> David|||Thanks for the info John.
I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
solution to go with.
--
David
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> also from Client versions.
> Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> "dkon" wrote:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> > for SQL . . . any help?
> > --
> > David|||Hi
If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
the I/O.
John
"dkon" wrote:
> Thanks for the info John.
> I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
> another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
> solution to go with.
> --
> David
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> > policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> > bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> > also from Client versions.
> >
> > Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> >
> > "dkon" wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings all,
> > >
> > > General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> > > for SQL . . . any help?
> > > --
> > > David|||John, thanks for the response.
Understood. I was just wondering if anyone had seen differences, as my boss
said he thought Symantec slowed SQL down as compared to McAfee . . . .
--
David
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
> The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
> the I/O.
> John
> "dkon" wrote:
> > Thanks for the info John.
> >
> > I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
> > another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
> > solution to go with.
> > --
> > David
> >
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> > > policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> > > bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> > > also from Client versions.
> > >
> > > Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> > >
> > > "dkon" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings all,
> > > >
> > > > General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> > > > for SQL . . . any help?
> > > > --
> > > > David|||Hi
If configured incorrectly both can slow SQL Server down.
Some people seem to have their favourites.
I would not accept a blanket statement without justification and/or
validation.
John
"dkon" wrote:
> John, thanks for the response.
> Understood. I was just wondering if anyone had seen differences, as my boss
> said he thought Symantec slowed SQL down as compared to McAfee . . . .
> --
> David
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
> > The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
> > the I/O.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "dkon" wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info John.
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
> > > another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
> > > solution to go with.
> > > --
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > "John Bell" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> > > > policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> > > > bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> > > > also from Client versions.
> > > >
> > > > Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> > > >
> > > > "dkon" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greetings all,
> > > > >
> > > > > General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> > > > > for SQL . . . any help?
> > > > > --
> > > > > David|||ok
thanks
--
David
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> If configured incorrectly both can slow SQL Server down.
> Some people seem to have their favourites.
> I would not accept a blanket statement without justification and/or
> validation.
> John
> "dkon" wrote:
> > John, thanks for the response.
> >
> > Understood. I was just wondering if anyone had seen differences, as my boss
> > said he thought Symantec slowed SQL down as compared to McAfee . . . .
> > --
> > David
> >
> >
> > "John Bell" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > If set up correctly most AV software should not have too much of an impact.
> > > The main cause of performance issues tends to be filter drivers slowing down
> > > the I/O.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > "dkon" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the info John.
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering if anyone had seen performance hits from one app to
> > > > another, as I am currently lucky enough to be able to choose which AV
> > > > solution to go with.
> > > > --
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "John Bell" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > In general the AV software on your server is decided by the company security
> > > > > policy rather than having a multitude of different products. You may have
> > > > > bulk licences to cover all servers. Server versions of AV products may differ
> > > > > also from Client versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Guidelines can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us
> > > > >
> > > > > "dkon" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> > > > > > for SQL . . . any help?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David|||"dkon" <dkon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:119E80D6-6862-4519-B168-14A3445B3033@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings all,
> General question: I'm used to Symantec, but my boos says McAfee is better
> for SQL . . . any help?
> --
> David
I wouldn't really care since I wouldn't use either on the database files.
(in fact in many environments, I might not use any).
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Help - Creating reports in pdf format

Hi all,

Greetings

I m using Sql Server 2000 for creating Reports. I like to display the ad-hoc generated report in pdf format. Do i have any pdf writter to display the report or i can able to do it in programmatically. If we can then plz give me the source code to write a pdf report.

Advance Thanks & Regards

Guna.

PDF creating is an outofthebox feature of Reporting Service. It is available as a rendering format in the report manager (Web interface) of each report, unless inactivated.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http//www.sqlserver2005.de