Can I get the source to the Import Wizard?

Or is someone reading this a Wizard of Wizards. I need a 2nd flavor of import wizard. The one that I would clone out of the existing one would:

Use ASCII not UnicodeUse the copy column control not the Data ConversionThe size of all fields will be 255 not 50.The data type will be varchar.

In my cloned wizard, the goal will be to just get the data loaded.
All other goals will be addressed by the user after the data is in the database.

Do I hear a volunteer?

Thanks,
IanONot sure what you are asking, but why not skip the Import Wizard and build your own package?

can I export tables so that existing tables in destination database will be modified?

I'm working on an ASP.Net project where I want to test code on a local
machine using a local database as a back-end, and then export it to
the production machine where it uses the hosting provider's SQL Server
database on the back-end. Is there a way to export tables from one
SQL Server database to another in such a way that if a table already
exists in the destination database, it will be updated to reflect the
changes to the local table, without existing data in the destination
table being lost? e.g. suppose I change some tables in my local
database by adding new fields. Can I "export" these changes to the
destination database so that the new fields will be added to the
destination tables (and filled in with default values), without losing
data in the destination tables?

If I run the DTS Import/Export Wizard that comes with SQL Server and
choose "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the source database" and choose
the tables I want to copy, there is apparently no option *not* to copy
the data, and since I don't want to copy the data, that choice doesn't
work. If instead of "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the source
database", I choose "Copy objects and data between SQL Server
databases", then on the following options I can uncheck the "Copy
Data" box to prevent data being copied. But for the "Create
Destination Objects" choices, I have to uncheck "Drop destination
objects first" since I don't want to lose the existing data. But when
I uncheck that and try to do the copy, I get collisions between the
properties of the local table and the existing destination table,
e.g.:
"Table 'wbuser' already has a primary key defined on it."

Is there no way to do what I want using the DTS Import/Export Wizard?
Can it be done some other way?

-Bennett"Bennett Haselton" <bennett@.peacefire.org> wrote in message
news:e614455c.0411160123.294dfd10@.posting.google.c om...
> I'm working on an ASP.Net project where I want to test code on a local
> machine using a local database as a back-end, and then export it to
> the production machine where it uses the hosting provider's SQL Server
> database on the back-end. Is there a way to export tables from one
> SQL Server database to another in such a way that if a table already
> exists in the destination database, it will be updated to reflect the
> changes to the local table, without existing data in the destination
> table being lost? e.g. suppose I change some tables in my local
> database by adding new fields. Can I "export" these changes to the
> destination database so that the new fields will be added to the
> destination tables (and filled in with default values), without losing
> data in the destination tables?

In a word, no.

I'd suggest take the same version controlled scripts (you are of course
using version control, right? :-) you used to make the changes in Dev and
run those against the Prod server.

> If I run the DTS Import/Export Wizard that comes with SQL Server and
> choose "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the source database" and choose
> the tables I want to copy, there is apparently no option *not* to copy
> the data, and since I don't want to copy the data, that choice doesn't
> work. If instead of "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the source
> database", I choose "Copy objects and data between SQL Server
> databases", then on the following options I can uncheck the "Copy
> Data" box to prevent data being copied. But for the "Create
> Destination Objects" choices, I have to uncheck "Drop destination
> objects first" since I don't want to lose the existing data. But when
> I uncheck that and try to do the copy, I get collisions between the
> properties of the local table and the existing destination table,
> e.g.:
> "Table 'wbuser' already has a primary key defined on it."
> Is there no way to do what I want using the DTS Import/Export Wizard?
> Can it be done some other way?
> -Bennett|||"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message news:<7Mnmd.16$1u.15@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "Bennett Haselton" <bennett@.peacefire.org> wrote in message
> news:e614455c.0411160123.294dfd10@.posting.google.c om...
> > I'm working on an ASP.Net project where I want to test code on a local
> > machine using a local database as a back-end, and then export it to
> > the production machine where it uses the hosting provider's SQL Server
> > database on the back-end. Is there a way to export tables from one
> > SQL Server database to another in such a way that if a table already
> > exists in the destination database, it will be updated to reflect the
> > changes to the local table, without existing data in the destination
> > table being lost? e.g. suppose I change some tables in my local
> > database by adding new fields. Can I "export" these changes to the
> > destination database so that the new fields will be added to the
> > destination tables (and filled in with default values), without losing
> > data in the destination tables?
> In a word, no.
> I'd suggest take the same version controlled scripts (you are of course
> using version control, right? :-) you used to make the changes in Dev and
> run those against the Prod server.

Uh, no... my "script" is that I move the mouse pointer over the
"wbuser" table in Server Explorer in VS .Net, right-click, pick
"Design Table", and add columns that way :)

So I guess I'll just have to remember to run that "script" against the
Prod database whenever I make any changes.

Still, I would have thought that what I was trying, would be a pretty
common thing for people to want to do... surprised it's not built-in.

-Bennett|||Bennett Haselton (bennett@.peacefire.org) writes:
> Uh, no... my "script" is that I move the mouse pointer over the
> "wbuser" table in Server Explorer in VS .Net, right-click, pick
> "Design Table", and add columns that way :)
> So I guess I'll just have to remember to run that "script" against the
> Prod database whenever I make any changes.
> Still, I would have thought that what I was trying, would be a pretty
> common thing for people to want to do... surprised it's not built-in.

There are third-party tools. Red Gate's SQL Compare is popular.

One reason that this is not built-in is that changes to tables is far
from always something that can be performed automatically. In our shop
we keep all table definitions under source control. To generate an update
script we have a tool that reads SourceSafe between two labels to load
all new and changed objects. For changed tables you get a script that
copies data from the old definition to the new, but this script is really
only a template. In many cases I need to change the script, because a
new column is supposed be initiated with some values derived from
other columns or tables. And there might be even wilder changes.

Point and click may be convenient, but for something which is to be
run several times needs to be automized to be sure that all are updates
are carried out the same way. Thus, you need a script.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Can I do an "alter table add column", with an existing named default?

Hello folks,
Shouldn't I be able to do this? I'm not able to get the syntax to work
Alter table TableName add ColumnName tinyint not null default
DefaultZero
This works:
Alter table TableName add ColumnName tinyint not null default (0)
...but I need to immediately drop the default programatically, and for
that I need the default name, so I'd like to name it myself.
I tried this:
EXEC sp_unbindefault 'TableName .ColumnName'
but got the error "Cannot unbind from 'TableName .ColumnName'. Use
ALTER TABLE DROP CONSTRAINT.
I guess I could query the system tables to figure out the name, but
would prefer not to if I can avoid it.
thanks for any ideas!
SylviaHere's an example with the proper syntax:
ALTER TABLE TableName
ADD ColumnName tinyint NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT DF_TableName_ColumnName DEFAULT 0
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sylvia" <Puget4753@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116288687.747349.22520@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello folks,
> Shouldn't I be able to do this? I'm not able to get the syntax to work
> Alter table TableName add ColumnName tinyint not null default
> DefaultZero
> This works:
> Alter table TableName add ColumnName tinyint not null default (0)
> ...but I need to immediately drop the default programatically, and for
> that I need the default name, so I'd like to name it myself.
> I tried this:
> EXEC sp_unbindefault 'TableName .ColumnName'
> but got the error "Cannot unbind from 'TableName .ColumnName'. Use
> ALTER TABLE DROP CONSTRAINT.
> I guess I could query the system tables to figure out the name, but
> would prefer not to if I can avoid it.
> thanks for any ideas!
> Sylvia
>|||thanks - this works perfectly!

Can I carry my existing DB users to a new server and restore??

Hi,

Quick question, I have about 20 users in my local server and database. We
are looking to restore that database to a new server in a new network and
still be able to retain the database users.

We have created all 20 logins in the new server (exact names) but when we
restore the database I do not see the users anymore!

Is there something we can do to preserve them or a script we can run to link
them again?

Thanks a bunch!!!

S"SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:138249382eb68f5a6766a476adc3da38@.news.teranew s.com...
> Hi,
> Quick question, I have about 20 users in my local server and database. We
> are looking to restore that database to a new server in a new network and
> still be able to retain the database users.
> We have created all 20 logins in the new server (exact names) but when we
> restore the database I do not see the users anymore!

sp_change_users_login is probably what you need.

> Is there something we can do to preserve them or a script we can run to
link
> them again?
> Thanks a bunch!!!
> S
>|||"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message news:<7Jtjc.122289$e17.75072@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "SD" <npspam@.nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:138249382eb68f5a6766a476adc3da38@.news.teranew s.com...
> > Hi,
> > Quick question, I have about 20 users in my local server and database. We
> > are looking to restore that database to a new server in a new network and
> > still be able to retain the database users.
> > We have created all 20 logins in the new server (exact names) but when we
> > restore the database I do not see the users anymore!
> sp_change_users_login is probably what you need.
>
> > Is there something we can do to preserve them or a script we can run to
> link
> > them again?
> > Thanks a bunch!!!
> > S

You can run the following script to generate a create script for all
of your users. It will generate a create statement for each login
using the encrypted password and SID. Replace "MY_DB" in the script
with your database name, then run the script against your source
database. Copy the output of the script to your destination server and
run it. Then, when you restore your database, your users will
automatically be synched with their logins. Hope this helps!

Lisa

-----
--Description: Scripts logins for one db
--*****IMPORTANT replace MY_DB with the name of the database that
holds the users that you need scripted

-- Begin Script, Create sp_help_revlogin procedure --
USE master
GO
SET NOCOUNT ON
IF OBJECT_ID ('sp_hexadecimal') IS NOT NULL
DROP PROCEDURE sp_hexadecimal
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_hexadecimal
@.binvalue varbinary(256),
@.hexvalue varchar(256) OUTPUT
AS
DECLARE @.charvalue varchar(256)
DECLARE @.i int
DECLARE @.length int
DECLARE @.hexstring char(16)
SELECT @.charvalue = '0x'
SELECT @.i = 1
SELECT @.length = DATALENGTH (@.binvalue)
SELECT @.hexstring = '0123456789ABCDEF'
WHILE (@.i <= @.length)
BEGIN
DECLARE @.tempint int
DECLARE @.firstint int
DECLARE @.secondint int
SELECT @.tempint = CONVERT(int, SUBSTRING(@.binvalue,@.i,1))
SELECT @.firstint = FLOOR(@.tempint/16)
SELECT @.secondint = @.tempint - (@.firstint*16)
SELECT @.charvalue = @.charvalue +
SUBSTRING(@.hexstring, @.firstint+1, 1) +
SUBSTRING(@.hexstring, @.secondint+1, 1)
SELECT @.i = @.i + 1
END
SELECT @.hexvalue = @.charvalue
GO

IF OBJECT_ID ('sp_help_revlogin') IS NOT NULL
DROP PROCEDURE sp_help_revlogin
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_help_MY_DBLogins @.login_name sysname = NULL AS
DECLARE @.name sysname
DECLARE @.xstatus int
DECLARE @.binpwd varbinary (256)
DECLARE @.txtpwd sysname
DECLARE @.tmpstr varchar (256)
DECLARE @.SID_varbinary varbinary(85)
DECLARE @.SID_string varchar(256)

IF (@.login_name IS NULL)
DECLARE login_curs CURSOR FOR

SELECT a.sid, a.name, a.xstatus, a.password FROM
master..sysxlogins a
join MY_DB..sysusers MY_DB on a.sid = MY_DB.sid
WHERE a.srvid IS NULL AND a.name <> 'sa'

ELSE
DECLARE login_curs CURSOR FOR
SELECT a.sid, a.name, a.xstatus, a.password FROM
master..sysxlogins a
join MY_DB..sysusers MY_DB on a.sid = MY_DB.sid
WHERE a.srvid IS NULL AND a.name <> 'sa'

OPEN login_curs
FETCH NEXT FROM login_curs INTO @.SID_varbinary, @.name, @.xstatus,
@.binpwd
IF (@.@.fetch_status = -1)
BEGIN
--PRINT 'No login(s) found.'
CLOSE login_curs
DEALLOCATE login_curs
RETURN -1
END
PRINT ''
PRINT 'DECLARE @.pwd sysname'
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
IF (@.@.fetch_status <> -2)
BEGIN
PRINT ''
IF (@.xstatus & 4) = 4
BEGIN -- NT authenticated account/group
IF (@.xstatus & 1) = 1
BEGIN -- NT login is denied access
SET @.tmpstr = 'EXEC master..sp_denylogin ''' + @.name + ''''
PRINT @.tmpstr
END
ELSE BEGIN -- NT login has access
SET @.tmpstr = 'EXEC master..sp_grantlogin ''' + @.name + ''''
PRINT @.tmpstr
END
END
ELSE BEGIN -- SQL Server authentication
IF (@.binpwd IS NOT NULL)
BEGIN -- Non-null password
EXEC sp_hexadecimal @.binpwd, @.txtpwd OUT
IF (@.xstatus & 2048) = 2048
SET @.tmpstr = 'SET @.pwd = CONVERT (varchar(256), ' + @.txtpwd
+ ')'
ELSE
SET @.tmpstr = 'SET @.pwd = CONVERT (varbinary(256), ' +
@.txtpwd + ')'
PRINT @.tmpstr
EXEC sp_hexadecimal @.SID_varbinary,@.SID_string OUT
SET @.tmpstr = 'EXEC master..sp_addlogin ''' + @.name
+ ''', @.pwd, @.sid = ' + @.SID_string + ', @.encryptopt = '
END
ELSE BEGIN
-- Null password
EXEC sp_hexadecimal @.SID_varbinary,@.SID_string OUT
SET @.tmpstr = 'EXEC master..sp_addlogin ''' + @.name
+ ''', NULL, @.sid = ' + @.SID_string + ', @.encryptopt = '
END
IF (@.xstatus & 2048) = 2048
-- login upgraded from 6.5
SET @.tmpstr = @.tmpstr + '''skip_encryption_old'''
ELSE
SET @.tmpstr = @.tmpstr + '''skip_encryption'''
PRINT @.tmpstr
END
END
FETCH NEXT FROM login_curs INTO @.SID_varbinary, @.name, @.xstatus,
@.binpwd
END
CLOSE login_curs
DEALLOCATE login_curs
RETURN 0
GO
-- End Script --
--
EXEC master..sp_help_MY_DBLogins
--drop proc sp_help_MY_DBLogins

Can bulkload update existing data in a table?

Hi.
I'm new to transfering data from XML to an SQL Database. I'm using

SQLXML Bulkload. I can insert data into the table successfully but I

cannot figure out how to update existing data. Is

this possible in Bulkload or should I use Updategrams instead? If it is, how can go about doing this?

I used Bulkload because I read up that it was good for large

file transfers.

Anyone?

Hi

you cannot really use bulkload for updating directly.... you could either use updategrams, or if you still load lots of data, you could use bulkload into a staging area and then do the updates and final inserts relationally from the staging tables into your final tables.

Best regards

Michael

|||Thanks so much!
I've decided to handle the updates separately and not use updategrams because its too meticulous to deal with especially since I hav to do this for different tables and xml files.

So what I'm doing is having a transition (temporary) table that will update the table. The mapping problem was solved by using Dictionary<>.

Thanks!

Can bulkload update existing data in a table?

Hi.
I'm new to transfering data from XML to an SQL Database. I'm using SQLXML Bulkload. I can insert data into the table successfully but I cannot figure out how toupdate existing data. Is this possible in Bulkload or should I use Updategrams instead? If it is, how can go about doing this?

I used Bulkload because I read up that it was good for large file transfers.

Anyone?

Hi

you cannot really use bulkload for updating directly.... you could either use updategrams, or if you still load lots of data, you could use bulkload into a staging area and then do the updates and final inserts relationally from the staging tables into your final tables.

Best regards

Michael

|||Thanks so much!
I've decided to handle the updates separately and not use updategrams because its too meticulous to deal with especially since I hav to do this for different tables and xml files.

So what I'm doing is having a transition (temporary) table that will update the table. The mapping problem was solved by using Dictionary<>.

Thanks!

Can bulkload update existing data in a table?

Hi.
I'm new to transfering data from XML to an SQL Database. I'm using

SQLXML Bulkload. I can insert data into the table successfully but I

cannot figure out how to update existing data. Is

this possible in Bulkload or should I use Updategrams instead? If it is, how can go about doing this?

I used Bulkload because I read up that it was good for large

file transfers.

Anyone?

Hi

you cannot really use bulkload for updating directly.... you could either use updategrams, or if you still load lots of data, you could use bulkload into a staging area and then do the updates and final inserts relationally from the staging tables into your final tables.

Best regards

Michael

|||Thanks so much!
I've decided to handle the updates separately and not use updategrams because its too meticulous to deal with especially since I hav to do this for different tables and xml files.

So what I'm doing is having a transition (temporary) table that will update the table. The mapping problem was solved by using Dictionary<>.

Thanks!

Can a table, matrix or list produce this?

I am converting a report from a Clipper application and the existing reports
shows States with some additional information in a format I am finding hard
to reproduce. On first glance the report looks like a simple tabular
format. There are something like 10 rows in the table with 3 columns. The
first item of data is placed in row 1 column 1. The second item is in row 1
column 2 and the third item is row 1 column three. The fourth item is in
row 2 and column 1. I can use a matrix and produce the rows going
horizontally but I am not sure how to limit the columns to 3 and start new
rows below that. Below is an example.
AL 12345 AR 12367 CA 19494
CO 38823 CT 43984 GA 39393
IA 39390 ID 39390 IL 39300
Any idea would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.You may be interested in this blog article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/chrishays/archive/2004/07/23/193292.aspx
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Lance" <lely@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e1xduBf4EHA.1452@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am converting a report from a Clipper application and the existing
reports
> shows States with some additional information in a format I am finding
hard
> to reproduce. On first glance the report looks like a simple tabular
> format. There are something like 10 rows in the table with 3 columns.
The
> first item of data is placed in row 1 column 1. The second item is in row
1
> column 2 and the third item is row 1 column three. The fourth item is in
> row 2 and column 1. I can use a matrix and produce the rows going
> horizontally but I am not sure how to limit the columns to 3 and start new
> rows below that. Below is an example.
> AL 12345 AR 12367 CA 19494
> CO 38823 CT 43984 GA 39393
> IA 39390 ID 39390 IL 39300
> Any idea would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.
>

Can a new field be added to an existing table.

Can a new field be added to a table that already exists.

Thanks in advance."kjc" <ksitron@.elp.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Rqi2d.2380$3b.1942@.fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Can a new field be added to a table that already exists.
> Thanks in advance.

Yes - see ALTER TABLE and "Adding and Deleting Columns" in Books Online:

alter table dbo.MyTable add MyColumn int null

Simon|||Thanks a bunch

Simon Hayes wrote:
> "kjc" <ksitron@.elp.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Rqi2d.2380$3b.1942@.fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>Can a new field be added to a table that already exists.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>
> Yes - see ALTER TABLE and "Adding and Deleting Columns" in Books Online:
> alter table dbo.MyTable add MyColumn int null
> Simon

Can a field be made mandatory for just new records?

Hi,
Is there any way in SQL server 2000, of making a field mandatory in an
existing table (which already contains thousands of records), without
having to update all of the existing records?
In otherwords, can a field be made mandatory for just new records?
If not, is the only solution to code it into my front end application?
Thanks
ColinThis doesn't really make much sense to me, so far. What is the point of
making the column mandatory if you're not going to update the existing rows?
Is there some application limitation that requires a value? If so, why
would the limitation only be relevant on new rows? Can the application not
look at old rows? Why is it okay for an old row to be NULL and not for a
new row? Just trying to understand the logistics.
If you want only new rows to contain a value, then it is fairly trivial to
have your insert stored procedure (you are using stored procedures, right?)
make that parameter NOT optional, and return an error if it is NULL. (You
will probably want to slightly change your form appearance and/or
validation.) But you're not going to be able to enforce this at the table
level, as far as I can tell (but maybe if you detail your reasoning it may
spawn additional thought).
A
"Bobby" <bobby2@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1189685999.863746.93220@.g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Is there any way in SQL server 2000, of making a field mandatory in an
> existing table (which already contains thousands of records), without
> having to update all of the existing records?
> In otherwords, can a field be made mandatory for just new records?
> If not, is the only solution to code it into my front end application?
> Thanks
> Colin
>|||On 13 Sep, 13:31, "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]"
<ten...@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote:
> This doesn't really make much sense to me, so far. What is the point of
> making the column mandatory if you're not going to update the existing rows?
> Is there some application limitation that requires a value? If so, why
> would the limitation only be relevant on new rows? Can the application not
> look at old rows? Why is it okay for an old row to be NULL and not for a
> new row? Just trying to understand the logistics.
>
My FE application is written in Access 2003. I have a form which I use
to create Purchase Orders. This form has a sub form for PO Items. Due
to a change in company procedures, I need to add four fields to the
sub form which all require user input. However, this only applies to
new POs. There is no sense in going back through five years worth of
(20,000) existing POs to make sure that all four columns conform and
have the correct data.
> If you want only new rows to contain a value, then it is fairly trivial to
> have your insert stored procedure (you are using stored procedures, right?)
> make that parameter NOT optional, and return an error if it is NULL. (You
> will probably want to slightly change your form appearance and/or
> validation.) But you're not going to be able to enforce this at the table
> level, as far as I can tell (but maybe if you detail your reasoning it may
> spawn additional thought).
>
I'm not using a stored procedure on this form, but perhaps that's the
answer.
Thanks for your help
Colin|||> new POs. There is no sense in going back through five years worth of
> (20,000) existing POs to make sure that all four columns conform and
> have the correct data.
No, but you could update them all in one shot with some token value (e.g.
N/A) and then you could apply your constraint and prevent further rows from
being un-populated.
A|||<snip>
> to a change in company procedures, I need to add four fields to the
> sub form which all require user input. However, this only applies to
> new POs. There is no sense in going back through five years worth of
> (20,000) existing POs to make sure that all four columns conform and
> have the correct data.
Before you go further, why don't you step through the process of what is
expected when someone modifies a PO created before your change (regardless
of how it is accomplished). Will your front-end somehow "know" that the PO
was created before the requirement and will correctly "adjust" its
appearance and logic to account for this not-present and not-required data?
If you have difficulty answering that question, then you are in a bit of a
cart-before-horse situation since you need to define the business logic
first.
There is an alternative that will support your stated goal. Create a
dependent table (in a 1-0/1) relationship that contains your new columns.
Your existing rows will have no associated row in this new table, while any
orders created (and, perhaps, modified) after this change will (or at least
can) have a row.|||On Sep 13, 7:19 am, Bobby <bob...@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there any way in SQL server 2000, of making a field mandatory in an
> existing table (which already contains thousands of records), without
> having to update all of the existing records?
> In otherwords, can a field be made mandatory for just new records?
> If not, is the only solution to code it into my front end application?
> Thanks
> Colin
I agree with Aaron - you most likely don't want do it. Yet it is
doable:
CREATE TABLE a(i INT)
INSERT a(i) VALUES(NULL)
GO
ALTER TABLE a WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT a_i_notnull CHECK(i IS NOT
NULL)
-- creates OK
GO
INSERT a(i) VALUES(NULL)
/*
Msg 547, Level 16, State 0, Line 1
The INSERT statement conflicted with the CHECK constraint
"a_i_notnull". The conflict occurred in database "FinancialDW", table
"dbo.a", column 'i'.
The statement has been terminated.
*/|||> I agree with Aaron - you most likely don't want do it. Yet it is
> doable:
Yes, of course. Why do I always forget NOCHECK? Probably because it's not
a very good practice for this kind of situation. :-)
A