Multiple instances of menu items

When using SQL Server Management Studio Express I get multiples of all the standard Windows menu items as well as in the dropdowns. I have also experienced this in the Visual Basic 2005 Exprerss edition IDE. What is causing this?

Hi,

as already mentioned in the other post, make sure you are running the most recent version. If not it would be nice to procude a screenshot to share it with us, because (for me) it is hard to imagine what the actual problem looks like.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Again, thanks for the response. I just finished downloading the install files for SSMS and will reinstall this PM. I have a screenshot of the multiple menus but I am not sure how to attach the image file to this posting. If there is a way please let me know and I will send it.

Thanks again.

|||Send them over via Mail.|||Don't mean to appear stupid, but to what mail address?|||Go thorugh my profile , the fat name on the left of this post. You will see my profile, you will have to remove the REMOVE_THINGS to avoid spam.

Multiple Databases on SQL

I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:

> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>

Multiple Databases on SQL

I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
several processors.
It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application is
different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course need to
know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
>> SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> How about parallelized?
Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell check found this type, but
my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I think.
> ;-)
> How about parallelized?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
>> several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application
>> is different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network,
>> processor) and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of
>> course need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
>> How about parallelized?
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
>> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
>> think.
>> ;-)
>> How about parallelized?
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two
>> applications", since each application is different. You can look at
>> resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
>> and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app.
>> You would of course need to know about resource usage for that other app
>> in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so
>> adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load
>> can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>>
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
I don't mind. Glad I've been of some help.
:-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David Henson" <dhenson@.certifiednetworks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A465E020FBBCdhensoncertifiednetw@.64.74.227.2...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
> I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
>
> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> > I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> > a
> > part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> > to
> > the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> > archiving
> > solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> > performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> > SQL
> > stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> > the
> > server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> > running
> > the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> > server.
> > Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>

Multiple <Create>...</Create> in one file Problem

I'm trying to create multiple dimensions (almost 800) in an SSAS 2005 database through one XMLA script file in an XMLA Query window in Management Studio. I have generated the <Create>...</Create> commands and tested that a representative sample of them execute correctly individually. However, when I paste them all (or just 2 of them) into the query window one right after the other and attempt to run the file, I get an error that claims only one <Create> command can appear:

"The 'Create' element at line 58, column 76 ('http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine' namespace) appears more than once under Envelope/Body/Execute/Command."

If I understand the documentation on the Create element correctly, you can have more than one such element within the <Command> </Command> element:

"0-n: Optional element that can occur more than once."

Anyone have an ideas on how to make this work? I'm trying to create 790+ dimensions, so I'd sure like to avoid executing each script manually.

hello Bob,

i think you could use <Batch> and specify all your create elements underneath. Books Online describe Batch in more details.

hope this helps,

|||

Hi, Mary! Thanks for your response.

I've actually tried <Batch><Create>...</Create><Create>...</Create></Batch> and it did not work. It complains that the Batch element may not occur within the <Command> element, although the documentation does say you can have <Batch> within <Command>.

Other ideas?

Bob

|||

i think something like the following should work:

<Envelope xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<Body>
<Execute xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xml-analysis">
<Command>
<Batch xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine">
<Create>..1st create.. .</Create>
<Create>..2nd create...</Create>
</Batch>
</Command>
<Properties>
<PropertyList>... properties list if any .... </PropertyList>
</Properties>
</Execute>
</Body>
</Envelope>

actually, SSMS can accept just the <batch> part itself i think (since it adds envelope/body .. etc. when needed).

hope this helps,

|||

Aha! I had not included the xmlns namespace attribute. When I added the namespace attribute xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine", it worked like a charm.

Thanks, Mary!