implicit txn

Hi ,
wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
db options ?
does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
changes to being written to the db ?
thks & rdgs
Hi,
In this mode you should either execute commit or rollback the transaction.
If you just disconnect all the transaction for that session
will be rolled back automatically.
This is actuall a session wide setting or server wide setting.
Session wide
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON
Server wide
exec sp_configure N'user options', 2
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs
|||Normally when you wish to have multiple statements grouped together in a
single transaction you must do a
Begin transaction... All work you do becomes part of the same group
transaction until you either commit or rollback the transaction.
Any statements (insert, update, delete) you make OUTSIDE of a begin tran,
commit pair are considered to be a transaction... Each statement is in it's
own transaction.
When you set implicit_transactions on, SQL Behaves differently.
Begin tran is no longer allowed, and almost EVERY statement you do
automatically begins a multi-statement transaction ( instead of each
statement being in it;s own tran.). Everything you do is aggregated into a
group transaction until you commit or rollback...
Most people do NOT use implicit_transactions.
BOL has more information ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs

implicit txn

Hi ,
wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
db options ?
does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
changes to being written to the db ?
thks & rdgsHi,
In this mode you should either execute commit or rollback the transaction.
If you just disconnect all the transaction for that session
will be rolled back automatically.
This is actuall a session wide setting or server wide setting.
Session wide
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON
Server wide
--
exec sp_configure N'user options', 2
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs|||Normally when you wish to have multiple statements grouped together in a
single transaction you must do a
Begin transaction... All work you do becomes part of the same group
transaction until you either commit or rollback the transaction.
Any statements (insert, update, delete) you make OUTSIDE of a begin tran,
commit pair are considered to be a transaction... Each statement is in it's
own transaction.
When you set implicit_transactions on, SQL Behaves differently.
Begin tran is no longer allowed, and almost EVERY statement you do
automatically begins a multi-statement transaction ( instead of each
statement being in it;s own tran.). Everything you do is aggregated into a
group transaction until you commit or rollback...
Most people do NOT use implicit_transactions.
BOL has more information ...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs

implicit txn

Hi ,
wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
db options ?
does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
changes to being written to the db ?
thks & rdgsHi,
In this mode you should either execute commit or rollback the transaction.
If you just disconnect all the transaction for that session
will be rolled back automatically.
This is actuall a session wide setting or server wide setting.
Session wide
SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON
Server wide
--
exec sp_configure N'user options', 2
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs|||>--Original Message--
>Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in
the
>db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
>changes to being written to the db ?
>thks & rdgs
>.
>|||Normally when you wish to have multiple statements grouped together in a
single transaction you must do a
Begin transaction... All work you do becomes part of the same group
transaction until you either commit or rollback the transaction.
Any statements (insert, update, delete) you make OUTSIDE of a begin tran,
commit pair are considered to be a transaction... Each statement is in it's
own transaction.
When you set implicit_transactions on, SQL Behaves differently.
Begin tran is no longer allowed, and almost EVERY statement you do
automatically begins a multi-statement transaction ( instead of each
statement being in it;s own tran.). Everything you do is aggregated into a
group transaction until you commit or rollback...
Most people do NOT use implicit_transactions.
BOL has more information ...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"maxzsim" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cc2601c48a6a$1ce36e90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> wat's exactly implicit transaction being turned on in the
> db options ?
> does it mean i have to supply a commit txn for the
> changes to being written to the db ?
> thks & rdgs

implicit KeepTogether on subreports

I just read from another post that there is an implicit KeepTogether on
Subreports. Apparently, this is a property that cannot be turned off
and causes subreport data to be pushed to a new page if it can't fit on
the current page.
The only advice given was to avoid using subreports if you don't want
this behavior.
Aren't there reports that cannot be written without using subreports?
Perhaps I'm just not being creative enough, but I'm pretty sure
subreports are neccesary for the type of report I'm running. Am I just
out of luck?I have trouble doing parent child things (using separate queries) without
subreports - but it is what it is...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.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
"Floor" <floorflux@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125088603.349930.167190@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I just read from another post that there is an implicit KeepTogether on
> Subreports. Apparently, this is a property that cannot be turned off
> and causes subreport data to be pushed to a new page if it can't fit on
> the current page.
> The only advice given was to avoid using subreports if you don't want
> this behavior.
> Aren't there reports that cannot be written without using subreports?
> Perhaps I'm just not being creative enough, but I'm pretty sure
> subreports are neccesary for the type of report I'm running. Am I just
> out of luck?
>