"Peter" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:021a01c3b799$599d34a0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Sorry if this is a common question, but I got to the
> newsgroup through the MS site and could not find the
> newsgroup to search for answers.
> I am using SQL 2000 and using the DTS wizard to copy
> objects (in my case tables and stored procedures) from one
> database to another. After the copy, some (but not all) of
> the tables do not have all of the rows copied. Those that
> do not always stop at a 1,000 record interval. When I use
> DTS and copy table I get all of the records, but then I
> need to generate the indices on the tables.
> So, is there a fix or workaround?
> Thanks
> Peter

>-----Original Message-----
>To tell you the truth I never use that task. Why not use
BACKUP/RESTORE?
>When i did use the task I never saw the behaviour you are
experiencing
>either. I like to have a script to run in my indices,
keys etc. Is there a
>commonality in the tables/rows that do not get moved? If
you only take
>across a smaller # of tables does this still happen? Do
you have enough
>room in your temp directory ? Is there an error
anywhere ?
>
>--
>--
>
>Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
>MCSE,MCDBA
>www.SQLDTS.com
>I support PASS - the definitive, global community
>for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>"Peter" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:021a01c3b799$599d34a0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>> Sorry if this is a common question, but I got to the
>> newsgroup through the MS site and could not find the
>> newsgroup to search for answers.
>> I am using SQL 2000 and using the DTS wizard to copy
>> objects (in my case tables and stored procedures) from
one
>> database to another. After the copy, some (but not all)
of
>> the tables do not have all of the rows copied. Those
that
>> do not always stop at a 1,000 record interval. When I
use
>> DTS and copy table I get all of the records, but then I
>> need to generate the indices on the tables.
>> So, is there a fix or workaround?
>> Thanks
>> Peter
>
>
>.