Need better workaround for hidden prompt without read-only behavior

I have many reports that have a parameter in them which I want to default to NULL and not show (plus other parameters I do want to show). If I leave the prompt field empty, I get the read-only error. The workaround has been to have the prompt field contain a single space, which works well as far as producing the behavior I want. However, every time you open the report in the designer, it automatically removes the space. What is a better solution?

When you clear the prompt string in Report Manager, make sure you do not check the prompt user flag.

The parameter values in the server override the designer parameter values. So even though the prompt string is back, it will still be hidden on the server.

In SQL 2005, we have made this behavor more clear.

|||I am not clearing the prompt string in Report Manager, I am doing so in the designer. These are reports that get installed at customer production sites by basically importing the rdl through a utility built into our software. I do not have access to maintaining the reports through report manager. Any suggestions?|||You would need to write in your iinstallation script that published the report to clear out the prompt string. The call is SetReportParameters.

Again, this is an RDL property in SQL 2005.sql

Near keyword in Full Text Search SQL server 2005

We've migrated to SQL 2005 and we are seeing that AND and NEAR opertors are
returning exactly the same results, this behavior did not occur in SQL 2000.
example:
select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'foo near bar') = 2494
select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'"foo" and "bar"') = 2494
I have tried all of the syntax options I could find and am also able to
provide examples where foo and bar are quite far apart (~3000 characters) far
more than 50 words I've seen quoted for 2005. Appreciate if anyone has any
ideas on why. Do I need to change some setting in the SQL Server?
ThanksI reported this as a bug to Microsoft some time ago, and I was told that
this behavior is by design due to a customer request. Here is my original
post.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext/msg/252dd1d3d6fedaa0?dmode=source
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"so3" <so3@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31E328D2-CB77-47A1-9B19-A319DBE29320@.microsoft.com...
> We've migrated to SQL 2005 and we are seeing that AND and NEAR opertors
> are
> returning exactly the same results, this behavior did not occur in SQL
> 2000.
> example:
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'foo near bar') = 2494
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'"foo" and "bar"') = 2494
> I have tried all of the syntax options I could find and am also able to
> provide examples where foo and bar are quite far apart (~3000 characters)
> far
> more than 50 words I've seen quoted for 2005. Appreciate if anyone has
> any
> ideas on why. Do I need to change some setting in the SQL Server?
> Thanks

Near keyword in Full Text Search SQL server 2005

We've migrated to SQL 2005 and we are seeing that AND and NEAR opertors are
returning exactly the same results, this behavior did not occur in SQL 2000.
example:
select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'foo near bar') = 2494
select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'"foo" and "bar"') = 2494
I have tried all of the syntax options I could find and am also able to
provide examples where foo and bar are quite far apart (~3000 characters) fa
r
more than 50 words I've seen quoted for 2005. Appreciate if anyone has any
ideas on why. Do I need to change some setting in the SQL Server?
ThanksI reported this as a bug to Microsoft some time ago, and I was told that
this behavior is by design due to a customer request. Here is my original
post.
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...a0?dmode=source
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"so3" <so3@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31E328D2-CB77-47A1-9B19-A319DBE29320@.microsoft.com...
> We've migrated to SQL 2005 and we are seeing that AND and NEAR opertors
> are
> returning exactly the same results, this behavior did not occur in SQL
> 2000.
> example:
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'foo near bar') = 2494
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'"foo" and "bar"') = 2494
> I have tried all of the syntax options I could find and am also able to
> provide examples where foo and bar are quite far apart (~3000 characters)
> far
> more than 50 words I've seen quoted for 2005. Appreciate if anyone has
> any
> ideas on why. Do I need to change some setting in the SQL Server?
> Thanks|||I reported this as a bug to Microsoft some time ago, and I was told that
this behavior is by design due to a customer request. Here is my original
post.
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...a0?dmode=source
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"so3" <so3@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31E328D2-CB77-47A1-9B19-A319DBE29320@.microsoft.com...
> We've migrated to SQL 2005 and we are seeing that AND and NEAR opertors
> are
> returning exactly the same results, this behavior did not occur in SQL
> 2000.
> example:
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'foo near bar') = 2494
> select count(*) from table1 where contains(*,'"foo" and "bar"') = 2494
> I have tried all of the syntax options I could find and am also able to
> provide examples where foo and bar are quite far apart (~3000 characters)
> far
> more than 50 words I've seen quoted for 2005. Appreciate if anyone has
> any
> ideas on why. Do I need to change some setting in the SQL Server?
> Thanks