No current backup?

Hello All,
The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
the following in the output log.
There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to roll
forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the defaul
t
instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there i
s
one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over a
s
the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate the
transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database wit
h
only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I did
start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generated
,
so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
please help.
Thanks.
Bilal Abbasi
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112Hi
It looks like you don't have a full database backup? Backing up the log will
allow the log to be re-used and it won't change the size. Shrinking the log
file can make it fragmented on the disc and should only be carried out after
significant abnormal growth.
John
"Bilal Abbasi" wrote:

> Hello All,
> The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> the following in the output log.
> There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to rol
l
> forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the defa
ult
> instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there
is
> one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primar
y]
> filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over
as
> the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate t
he
> transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database w
ith
> only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I di
d
> start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generat
ed,
> so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> please help.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112|||see this..from Books Online
Virtual Log Files
Each transaction log file is divided logically into smaller segments called
virtual log files. Virtual log files are the unit of truncation for the
transaction log. When a virtual log file no longer contains log records for
active transactions, it can be truncated and the space becomes available to
log new transactions.
The smallest size for a virtual log file is 256 kilobytes (KB). The minimum
size for a transaction log is 512 KB, which provides two 256-KB virtual log
files. The number and size of the virtual log files in a transaction log
increase as the size of the log file increases. A small log file can have a
small number of small virtual log files (for example, a 5-MB log file that
comprises five 1-MB virtual log files). A large log file can have larger
virtual log files (for example, a 500-MB log file that comprises ten 50-MB
virtual log files).
Microsoft SQL ServerT 2000 tries to avoid having many small virtual log
files. The number of virtual log files grows much more slowly than the size.
If a log file grows in small increments, it tends to have many small virtual
log files. If the log file grows in larger increments, SQL Server creates a
smaller number of larger virtual log files. For example, if the transaction
log is growing by 1-MB increments, the virtual log files are smaller and
more numerous compared to a transaction log growing at 50-MB increments. A
large number of virtual log files can increase the time taken to perform
database recovery.
As records are written to the log, the end of the log grows from one virtual
log file to the next. If there is more than one physical log file for a
database, the end of the log grows through each virtual log file in each
physical file before circling back to the first virtual log file in the
first physical file. Only when all log files are full will the log begin to
grow automatically.
"Bilal Abbasi" <BilalAbbasi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A8FE0793-E2B4-47E6-B176-9F78E78D6BFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello All,
> The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> the following in the output log.
> There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to
> roll
> forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the
> default
> instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there
> is
> one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primar
y]
> filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over
> as
> the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate
> the
> transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database
> with
> only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I
> did
> start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being
> generated,
> so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> please help.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112|||That is exactly the point. The full dump is done and transaction log is
initialized as a scheduled process. Subsequent appends work so the log file
s
increase to around 15 when the output from the append job starts writing
"There is no current backup", just out of the blue. And it's not something
that I can predict either as to at what point this will start to fail.
Another thing that I noticed is that there are 5 rows in the sysfiles table
and 6 in sysfiles1. The sixth row in sysfiles1 is pointing to a physical LD
F
file that does not exist. I have not found a way to get rid of this
obviously orphanned record. It's a mess I need to cleanup somehow.
--
Bilal Abbasi
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It looks like you don't have a full database backup? Backing up the log wi
ll
> allow the log to be re-used and it won't change the size. Shrinking the lo
g
> file can make it fragmented on the disc and should only be carried out aft
er
> significant abnormal growth.
> John
> "Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
>|||Hi
You could code around this by issuing a full backups if you hit this error
to restart the log backup sequence, or it would probably better to use SQL
profiler to get to the root of this and find what is issuing the statement
that is breaking the log backup sequence.
What does sp_helpfiles return?
Can you take a full backup and restore it on a different machine? If so you
could try ALTER DATABASE <db> REMOVE FILE <logical_file>
John
"Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That is exactly the point. The full dump is done and transaction log is
> initialized as a scheduled process. Subsequent appends work so the log fi
les
> increase to around 15 when the output from the append job starts writing
> "There is no current backup", just out of the blue. And it's not somethin
g
> that I can predict either as to at what point this will start to fail.
> Another thing that I noticed is that there are 5 rows in the sysfiles tabl
e
> and 6 in sysfiles1. The sixth row in sysfiles1 is pointing to a physical
LDF
> file that does not exist. I have not found a way to get rid of this
> obviously orphanned record. It's a mess I need to cleanup somehow.
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
>sql

No current backup?

Hello All,
The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
the following in the output log.
There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to roll
forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the default
instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there is
one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over as
the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate the
transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database with
only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I did
start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generated,
so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
please help.
Thanks.
--
Bilal Abbasi
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112Hi
It looks like you don't have a full database backup? Backing up the log will
allow the log to be re-used and it won't change the size. Shrinking the log
file can make it fragmented on the disc and should only be carried out after
significant abnormal growth.
John
"Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
> Hello All,
> The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> the following in the output log.
> There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to roll
> forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the default
> instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there is
> one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
> filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over as
> the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate the
> transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database with
> only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I did
> start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generated,
> so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> please help.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112|||see this..from Books Online
Virtual Log Files
Each transaction log file is divided logically into smaller segments called
virtual log files. Virtual log files are the unit of truncation for the
transaction log. When a virtual log file no longer contains log records for
active transactions, it can be truncated and the space becomes available to
log new transactions.
The smallest size for a virtual log file is 256 kilobytes (KB). The minimum
size for a transaction log is 512 KB, which provides two 256-KB virtual log
files. The number and size of the virtual log files in a transaction log
increase as the size of the log file increases. A small log file can have a
small number of small virtual log files (for example, a 5-MB log file that
comprises five 1-MB virtual log files). A large log file can have larger
virtual log files (for example, a 500-MB log file that comprises ten 50-MB
virtual log files).
Microsoft® SQL ServerT 2000 tries to avoid having many small virtual log
files. The number of virtual log files grows much more slowly than the size.
If a log file grows in small increments, it tends to have many small virtual
log files. If the log file grows in larger increments, SQL Server creates a
smaller number of larger virtual log files. For example, if the transaction
log is growing by 1-MB increments, the virtual log files are smaller and
more numerous compared to a transaction log growing at 50-MB increments. A
large number of virtual log files can increase the time taken to perform
database recovery.
As records are written to the log, the end of the log grows from one virtual
log file to the next. If there is more than one physical log file for a
database, the end of the log grows through each virtual log file in each
physical file before circling back to the first virtual log file in the
first physical file. Only when all log files are full will the log begin to
grow automatically.
"Bilal Abbasi" <BilalAbbasi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A8FE0793-E2B4-47E6-B176-9F78E78D6BFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello All,
> The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> the following in the output log.
> There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to
> roll
> forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the
> default
> instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there
> is
> one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
> filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over
> as
> the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate
> the
> transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database
> with
> only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I
> did
> start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being
> generated,
> so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> please help.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112|||That is exactly the point. The full dump is done and transaction log is
initialized as a scheduled process. Subsequent appends work so the log files
increase to around 15 when the output from the append job starts writing
"There is no current backup", just out of the blue. And it's not something
that I can predict either as to at what point this will start to fail.
Another thing that I noticed is that there are 5 rows in the sysfiles table
and 6 in sysfiles1. The sixth row in sysfiles1 is pointing to a physical LDF
file that does not exist. I have not found a way to get rid of this
obviously orphanned record. It's a mess I need to cleanup somehow.
--
Bilal Abbasi
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> It looks like you don't have a full database backup? Backing up the log will
> allow the log to be re-used and it won't change the size. Shrinking the log
> file can make it fragmented on the disc and should only be carried out after
> significant abnormal growth.
> John
> "Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> > the following in the output log.
> > There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to roll
> > forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> >
> > This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> > instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the default
> > instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there is
> > one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
> > filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over as
> > the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate the
> > transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> >
> > Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> > cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> >
> > I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> > any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database with
> > only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I did
> > start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generated,
> > so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> > please help.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bilal Abbasi
> > Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> > 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> > New York, NY 10112|||Hi
You could code around this by issuing a full backups if you hit this error
to restart the log backup sequence, or it would probably better to use SQL
profiler to get to the root of this and find what is issuing the statement
that is breaking the log backup sequence.
What does sp_helpfiles return?
Can you take a full backup and restore it on a different machine? If so you
could try ALTER DATABASE <db> REMOVE FILE <logical_file>
John
"Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
> That is exactly the point. The full dump is done and transaction log is
> initialized as a scheduled process. Subsequent appends work so the log files
> increase to around 15 when the output from the append job starts writing
> "There is no current backup", just out of the blue. And it's not something
> that I can predict either as to at what point this will start to fail.
> Another thing that I noticed is that there are 5 rows in the sysfiles table
> and 6 in sysfiles1. The sixth row in sysfiles1 is pointing to a physical LDF
> file that does not exist. I have not found a way to get rid of this
> obviously orphanned record. It's a mess I need to cleanup somehow.
> --
> Bilal Abbasi
> Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> New York, NY 10112
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > It looks like you don't have a full database backup? Backing up the log will
> > allow the log to be re-used and it won't change the size. Shrinking the log
> > file can make it fragmented on the disc and should only be carried out after
> > significant abnormal growth.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Bilal Abbasi" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > The hourly sheduled appends to the trasnaction log file start genereating
> > > the following in the output log.
> > > There is no current database backup. This log backup cannot be used to roll
> > > forward a preceding database backup. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> > >
> > > This is happening on one database on SQL 2000 machine running three
> > > instances of SQL Server. This happening to a database that is on the default
> > > instance. Does anyone know why this is happening? Other than that, there is
> > > one transaction log device and four data devices with the same [Primary]
> > > filegroup defined for each data device in the database. Since I took over as
> > > the admin for this particular database, I have not been able to trucnate the
> > > transaction log. The Dbcc produces the following:
> > >
> > > Cannot shrink log file 2 ('') because total number of logical log files
> > > cannot be fewer than 2. [SQLSTATE 01000].
> > >
> > > I have tried following the instructions as per MSKB 324432 but have'nt had
> > > any luck. The only thing that I have not tried is recreate the database with
> > > only one log and one data device and transfer all the data. Actually I did
> > > start it once and ran out of diskspace when the indexes were being generated,
> > > so I had to scrap that idea. If you have any clue as to what's going on,
> > > please help.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bilal Abbasi
> > > Chadbourne & Parke LLP
> > > 30 Rockefeller Plaza
> > > New York, NY 10112

Newbie's Last Question

Current code is below:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
INSERT INTO FORUM_ALLOWED_MEMBERS
(
Member_ID,
Forum_ID
)
SELECT
FORUM_MEMBERS.Member_ID, FORUM_FORUM.Forum_ID FROM FORUM_MEMBERS
INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M_M
ARSTATUS + '%'
WHERE ISNULL(FORUM_MEMBERS.M_MARSTATUS,'') <> '' AND
NOT EXISTS(SELECT NULL FROM FORUM_ALLOWED_MEMBERS A
WHERE A.Member_ID = FORUM_MEMBERS.Member_ID AND
A.Forum_ID = FORUM_FORUM.Forum_ID) AND
EXISTS (SELECT FORUM_MEMBERS.M_DATE WHERE M_DATE >= 20050322000000)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
F_SUBJECT Values = ... "147. BlaBla" "148. BlaBla" "149. BlaBla" "150. BlaBl
a" .......
F_MARSTATUS Values = ... "147" "148" 149" "150" "151" "152" "153" ........
Current code add members to forum which subject is like member's m_marstatus
value.
How to add members to forums which subject contains m_marstatus value's -3 a
nd +3.
For example M_MARSTATUS = 150, member will be allowed by forums between "147
. BlaBla" and "153. BlaBla"
Can i use 7 different inner joins to do thissuch as:
INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M_M
ARSTATUS + '%'
INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M_M
ARSTATUS -3 + '%'
INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M_M
ARSTATUS -2 + '%'
etc.I'm sorry to say that you are now experiencing the difficulties of coding
against a poorly designed database schema (structure) . The first thing to
do would be to redesign the tables so they are at least in "3rd Normal form"
.
If you don't know what that means, read up on it a bt...
Your immediate problem is caused by having violated one of the first rules
of database normalization, that is of putting more than one piece of
information into a single column. Each attribute, or aspect about a "thing"
should be in it's own column. You have Marital Status, and Subject mixed
together in one column. Then, you also have multiple individual data
elements of the SAME type in that single column. If you fix these issues yo
u
will find the coding problem you are facing will just go away.
"LacOniC" wrote:

> Current code is below:
> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> INSERT INTO FORUM_ALLOWED_MEMBERS
> (
> Member_ID,
> Forum_ID
> )
> SELECT
> FORUM_MEMBERS.Member_ID, FORUM_FORUM.Forum_ID FROM FORUM_MEMBERS
> INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M
_MARSTATUS + '%'
> WHERE ISNULL(FORUM_MEMBERS.M_MARSTATUS,'') <> '' AND
> NOT EXISTS(SELECT NULL FROM FORUM_ALLOWED_MEMBERS A
> WHERE A.Member_ID = FORUM_MEMBERS.Member_ID AND
> A.Forum_ID = FORUM_FORUM.Forum_ID) AND
> EXISTS (SELECT FORUM_MEMBERS.M_DATE WHERE M_DATE >= 20050322000000)
> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> F_SUBJECT Values = ... "147. BlaBla" "148. BlaBla" "149. BlaBla" "150. Bla
Bla" .......
> F_MARSTATUS Values = ... "147" "148" 149" "150" "151" "152" "153" ......
.
> Current code add members to forum which subject is like member's m_marstat
us value.
> How to add members to forums which subject contains m_marstatus value's -3
and +3.
> For example M_MARSTATUS = 150, member will be allowed by forums between "1
47. BlaBla" and "153. BlaBla"
> Can i use 7 different inner joins to do thissuch as:
> INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M
_MARSTATUS + '%'
> INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M
_MARSTATUS -3 + '%'
> INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' + FORUM_MEMBERS.M
_MARSTATUS -2 + '%'
> etc.
>
>|||This is Snitz Forum Database. If i edit database structure, i get more probl
ems. (For example when i update
forum version)
"You have Marital Status, and Subject mixed together in one column. "
Didn't understand this one. They are in different tables and columns.
Thank you.|||In your first post, you said...
F_SUBJECT Values = ... "147. BlaBla" "148. BlaBla" "149. BlaBla" "150.
BlaBla"
I assumed the numeric values are Marital Status, and the "BlaBla" (based on
the column name "F_SUBJECT"), have something to do with, Subjects? And thi
s
is all in the same column, no?
"LacOniC" wrote:

> This is Snitz Forum Database. If i edit database structure, i get more
problems. (For example when i update
> forum version)
> "You have Marital Status, and Subject mixed together in one column. "
> Didn't understand this one. They are in different tables and columns.
> Thank you.
>
>|||Probably my mistake. Column values are such as below:
F_SUBJECT
...
147. BlaBla
148. BlaBla
150. BlaBla
...
M_MARSTATUS
...
147
148
149
...
M_MARSTATUS column holds an user information, F_SUBJECT column holds forum s
ubject. They are relative but not
same. So i use LIKE.
"CBretana" <cbretana@.areteIndNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4A0BFEA5-5996-4442-A411-BEFB84A611FA@.microsoft.com...
> In your first post, you said...
> F_SUBJECT Values = ... "147. BlaBla" "148. BlaBla" "149. BlaBla" "150.
> BlaBla"
> I assumed the numeric values are Marital Status, and the "BlaBla" (based o
n
> the column name "F_SUBJECT"), have something to do with, Subjects? And t
his
> is all in the same column, no?
> "LacOniC" wrote:
>
update|||If F_Subject contains...
147. BlaBla
148. BlaBla
150. BlaBla
What is the value "147" in the first row above represent? Is it a Subject?
If it is some Subject, you can't link it (using LIKE) to the values in the
M_MARSTATUS
column. If it IS Marital Status, then it should be in it's own column as a
foreign Key, NOT concatenated wit hSubject data in the F_SUBJET Column.
"LacOniC" wrote:

> Probably my mistake. Column values are such as below:
> F_SUBJECT
> ...
> 147. BlaBla
> 148. BlaBla
> 150. BlaBla
> ...
> M_MARSTATUS
> ...
> 147
> 148
> 149
> ...
> M_MARSTATUS column holds an user information, F_SUBJECT column holds forum
subject. They are relative but not
> same. So i use LIKE.
>
> "CBretana" <cbretana@.areteIndNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:4A0BFEA5-5996-4442-A411-BEFB84A611FA@.microsoft.com...
> update
>
>|||Oh no. I don't hold marital status values in that column or anywhere else. I
use that column to hold user's
sh information.
If user belongs to "150. period of school", he should see that period and ot
hers that is closed his period.
(147,148,149,151,152,153).
With query that i wrote in first message, user just see 150.|||If you don't "hold marital status values in that column or anywhere else"...
Then how can you be joining this column (FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT), with the
FORUM_MEMBERS.M_MARSTATUS column? If the numbers in this column are NOT
marital statuses, then what is this join doing '
From your original post...
FROM FORUM_MEMBERS
INNER JOIN FORUM_FORUM ON
FORUM_FORUM.F_SUBJECT LIKE '%' +
FORUM_MEMBERS.M_MARSTATUS + '%'
"LacOniC" wrote:

> Oh no. I don't hold marital status values in that column or anywhere e
lse. I use that column to hold user's
> sh information.
> If user belongs to "150. period of school", he should see that period
and others that is closed his period.
> (147,148,149,151,152,153).
> With query that i wrote in first message, user just see 150.
>
>|||I wrote what column includes which value. I didn't say MaritalStatus cloumn
is empty. It just doesn't hold
what it says. It holds numbers as 150. In fact i can't say what join is doin
g there, lol. But it works very
well. =)|||Laconic,
Well if it works, then the value in there must mean something... Your
first task, before anyone can help you, (including yourself) is t ofind out
what is in the database, (Tables and Columns) and understand what the query
is supposed to be doing, and what it is doing...
That includes knowing, and understanding, the data that is in the database.
Until you do, you really shouldn't even be messing with it. If you're the
DBA, your first task should be to hire someone who knows enough about
database technology to do that. I say that reluctantlly, but, based on your
comments in this thread, it seems that you have a great deal to learn about
SQL and RDBMS technology in general, before your skills will be at the level
necessary to do what needs doing on this system.
"LacOniC" wrote:

> I wrote what column includes which value. I didn't say MaritalStatus c
loumn is empty. It just doesn't hold
> what it says. It holds numbers as 150. In fact i can't say what join is do
ing there, lol. But it works very
> well. =)
>
>