John's Brain Dump - All Comments

Developing on Community Server

Community Server — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:07:22 GMT

When you come to developing on top of Community Server, you’ve first got to decide whether or not

Developing on Community Server

Community Server — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:26:54 GMT

When you come to developing on top of Community Server, you’ve first got to decide whether or not

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

José Manuel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:26:13 GMT

I hope you luck to do this module. It will be a must!

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

John — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:12:03 GMT

Right, you would definitely need to create updated file viewers for that. You may be able to use the generated video preview image from this module in the updated viewers.

If you do try to implement this, then let me know how it goes! I may try my hand at it as well.

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

fractalnavel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:04:18 GMT

ok, i see that. but what i was looking for was for the preview to be in the background of the "click to play" view, which normally uses . superimposing that image over the preview and using the result... it appears that this would need some sort of adaptation of what FileViewers.Render(..) does. hmmm - if _you_ don't get to it, _i_ will ;-)

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

John — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:35:55 GMT

Right, I looked at the source and realized that the PostVideoPreviewImageViewer doesn't properly respect the ViewType attribute. I initially intended this control to only be used to show preview images, never actual content.

I will work on publishing an update later this week.

In the meantime, if your videos are stored in a media gallery, then you can use the custom MediaGalleryPostViewer control supplied with the module and you should get the behavior you expect: video preview images when viewing a preview and "click to play" when viewing an actual video.

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

fractalnavel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:17:32 GMT

cool, very nice. except, um - when i use the PostVideoPreviewImageViewer control, i lose the "click to play" functionality. that appears to be intended behavior. or am i missing something ?

re: Debugging MOSS 2007 Web Parts

Arjun — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:34:14 GMT

this is the best post ever! I started working on MOSS 2007; 3 days ago.

re: Community Server Video Preview Module

John — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:32:00 GMT

Here's one thing I forgot, that came out of a conversation I just had. In order to start seeing video preview images, you need to edit and save the posts in order to generate the previews.

If you add the module and don't see any preview images, edit one of your media gallery video posts, save it, and then look again.

If you still don't see images, look in your Community Server error logs in the Control Panel to see if any errors with the module were reported.

Hope that helps!

John

re: Debugging MOSS 2007 Web Parts

Adam — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:41:25 GMT

Thanks for this post! I too hated the complete lack of error information. You have saved me a ton of time.

re: 5 Reasons to use Indexed Views

John — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:23:12 GMT

Fred,

On your first question, I'm not exactly sure how to answer without seeing your actual tables & queries. Based on what you've said, I don't think that you need a new index on your second view. Linking customer ID from your indexed view to the customers table should be a trivial operation that won't benefit much from using an indexed view, so I wouldn't worry about putting an index on the second view.

On your second question, you should be able to request the second view. If implemented according to my article, your second view will reference the first (indexed) view, so your query will gain the benefit of the view index.

Hope that helps! Keep the questions coming.

John

re: 5 Reasons to use Indexed Views

frederic_eynard — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:41:21 GMT

[comment moved from my old blog]

Hi John,

Thanks for your article.

I tried to apply your solution, but I encountered some difficulties.

To Summary, I have 3 tables: date, customer and order table. In the first one, I have the YEAR column ( to simplify.. ) the second one, I have the cust_id, first name, last name. And the last one, I have a ref to date table, a ref to customer table, and a ORDER_AMOUNT column.

I have created a first index on YEAR, SUM(ORDER_AMOUNT), CUST_ID.

This works fine. The sql optimizer uses my index.

I try to use your method to get the customer name with the previous result.

So I created a new view as mentioned in your articles. But after that, I did not able to create the new index, because on sqlserver 2005, the index can not be created on a view.

The other question I have. If you want to obtain YEAR, SUM(ORDER_AMOUNT), CUST_ID and LASTNAME, do You need to make the request directly on your second view or do you leave the SQL optimizer rewrite the query?

Thanks in advance

Fred

NDoc 2.0 is (Not Quite) Dead!

John's Brain Dump — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:59:01 GMT

Many of you were saddened by the news that Kevin Downs quit development on NDoc , the .NET documentation

re: 5 Reasons to use Indexed Views

John — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:15:42 GMT

You're right Ryan--the second query couldn't be indexed. But I'm not suggesting that the second query be indexed. In order for this example to work, you'll need both views. (Sorry if that's not clear.)

The first view (vwAccountTransactionBalance_Indexed) is the indexed view, where your performance gains are made. The second view (vwAccountTransactionBalance

) uses the first view and includes the LEFT JOIN to ensure that no accounts are missed because they have no transactions. The second view also ensures that you're using the index on your view by specifying the (NOEXPAND) hint.

You should always use the second view in your application queries, and you'll get the benefit of the index on the first view.

I hope that clears things up!

re: 5 Reasons to use Indexed Views

Ryan — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:51:48 GMT

You would not be able to index the second query in #4, because of the LEFT JOIN.