[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming

SSIS Howto : Bulk copy data from ODBC source -> SQL 2005

Kristof Clevers

3/15/2007 10:13:00 AM

Hello,

What is the best practice for bulk copying the whole data structure +
data (=all the tables and the data, no constraints, relations) from an
ODBC datasource to SQL 2005?

It is possible to make this generic:
what I mean is: I define an ODBC connection and the package excutes:

--> For every table in the source: (foreach?? = posiible with
ODBC?)
--> Create the table structure in SQL 2005
--> Copy the data in the newly createad table

thx in advance
Kristof
2 Answers

Bradipus

7/25/2014 3:38:00 PM

0

Phil McGregor 22:36, gioved? 24 luglio 2014:



>>Every Communist government has established a brutal
>>police state, persecuted and often murdered "class
>>enemies", and caused large numbers of people to flee
>>the country.
>
> Well, yes. And Australia accepted many of those that fled
> such takeovers in Europe from 1945 to the middle 1950's or
> so. We continued to accept them from Yugoslavia right through
> the 1960's and later, for example.
>
>>This happened in Russia, Poland, East Germany,
>>Hungary, China, Tibet, Cuba, Afghanistan, Cambodia,
>>Laos, and Vietnam - where mass execution of "class
>>enemies" was an explicitly declared policy of the old
>>Stalinist Ho Chi Minh.
>
> Indeed. And if he'd taken over in 1945 I have no doubt that
> there would have been the usual settling of the scores.
>
> But the world in 1945 was a very very different place than it
> was in 1972.


Suharto killed 500 thousand Indonesians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2...


>>And in every case there were refugees.
>
> Which immediately post-WW2 Australia was happy to accept AS
> LONG AS THEY WERE WHITE ... even then they were discriminated
> against.
>
> For example, UK citizens could immediately vote in Australian
> elections (or maybe it was a 12 month residency requirement,
> though that may have been later) and qualified for
> citizenship in, IIRC, two years. European origin migrants
> from other Commonwealth countries had to wait, IIRC, 4 or 5
> years. All other european migrants had to wait 12-15 years
> (though those who could prove that they had fought with, or
> along side, Allied forces in the war could qualify after 7
> years, IIRC).
>
> By the mid 1970s, things were changing, but that is a
> different matter ...


There is an Italian film on an Italian worker emigrated in
Australia, with comedian Alberto Sordi and Claudia Cardinale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Girl_in...


> I keep telling my bleeding heart liberal acquaintances that
> the 1951 convention was NOT written for the reasons they
> think it was, and that it doesn't say what they think (or
> wish) it says and that its real reason was to actually
> prevent the sort of refugee problem(s) ... especially the
> large numbers of them ... that resulted from WW2.
>
> The few that actually read the commentaries from the
> delegates to the convention that wrote the rules that I point
> them to are horrified. But still insist that we 'should'
> accept anyone and everyone. Most aren't interested in facts,
> and just want to let anyone and everyone in. I imagine its
> the same in the US and UK and elsewhere ...


Everywhere.

But not always a distinction between economic and politic
migrants is clear, when states collapse or fall in civil war.


--
Bradipus

Rich Rostrom

7/30/2014 4:46:00 AM

0

Phil McGregor <aspqrz@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> It was the *failure* of the US-led war in SE Asia that caused the
> problem ... as long as the war *continued* any refugees fled to, one
> presumes, different places *within* Vietnam (and, later, Cambodia) ...
> only after the US led effort *collapsed* and the South Vietnamese
> regime proved incapable of resisting by itself (for whatever reason)
> *and* the Communists took over and persecuted most of those people who
> then became refugees and fled *overseas* was there a problem *that
> resulted in 'Boat People' arriving in Oz* ... for which most
> Australians tended to feel some sympathy, as noted.
>
> >This is a distortion compared to the Nazi apologists
> >who blame the Allies and world Jewry for provoking the
> >Nazis to commit the Holocaust.
>
> Sorry, you misunderstand.

Then I apologize for suggesting that you misrepresented events.


The communists and their persecution of
> those who were perceived to be 'enemies of the state' (aka those who
> had supported the Saigon government, especially, but not in any way
> limited to, ethnic Chinese) were the immediate cause of the refugee
> problem.
>
> That is indisputable.
>
> The thing is, the failure of the US-led coalition (for whatever
> reason) to 'win' ... or even to continue support for the fragile SVN
> regime after they withdrew *at the levels needed to ensure survival of
> said regime* (though I'm not sure *any* level of support other than
> actual troops on the ground would have made any ultimate difference)
> ... was the proximate cause of the whole situation.

Yeah. But that is more complex that "we screwed up the country",
which sounded like something else.


> There were *real* refugees from the Netherlands East Indies in
> Australia during WW2 (not huge amounts, but a number (5000 is a figure
> I have heard bandied about) ... ethnic Indonesians, non-whites ...
> they were *very* grudgingly allowed in, and allowed to stay on the
> strict understanding that, as soon as practicable after the war was
> over, they would be repatriated, pretty much regardless of the
> condition back 'home' ... and the Commonwealth did *exactly* that.
>
> Even those children *born in Australia* were *specifically* excluded
> from being considered either citizens or residents and were deported.
> All of them. Without exception.

I can understand _that_. These were refugees from the Japanese
invasion, and when the Japanese were removed, these people could
go home.

I don't believe that giving refuge to people from a temporary
danger should necessarily extend to permanent tenancy. One
reason people are reluctant to provide such refuge is the
suspicion that it will be abused in that manner.

> >Communism was defeated in Greece, South Korea, Malaya,
> >and the Philippines - and there were no refugees.
>
> Oh. Really. No Greek Refugees. Really.
>
> Melbourne is the second largest Greek speaking city in the world,
> after Athens. Most of those came out because of the results of WW2 -
> yes, the German and Italian occupation, but also because of the
> fighting, the Civil War, after the end of the war. That Civil War had
> at least as much impact on many Greeks fleeing the country as did the
> damage done by the Axis occupation.

There are plenty of Greek immigrants in Chicago. Maybe
when you're here we can go out for gyros. (The "gyrokone"
was invented in Chicago, and gyroa is right up there with
pizza as popular food.)

But I wouldn't describe them as "refugees". They weren't
driven from their homes by natural or man-made disaster.

> >The conduct of the Vietnam war by the U.S. is
> >indefensible - incompetence at every level - but
> >that should not be used to excuse the Communists for
> >their crimes, any more than the racist element of
> >U.S. feeling toward Japan in WW II should excuse
> >Japanese war crimes.
>
> I made, and make, no such excuses...

And I am sorry for suggesting that you did.

> ... merely noting that it was the
> failure of the US led coalition to *win* that resulted in the refugee
> problem *of the mid 1970's and later*

True. But Australia "carried its bat" in the war, AFAIK.
_Your_ chaps didn't screw up.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevo...