In SQL Server 2008 Management Studio object explorer you can expand the
"tables" folder of a database to see the list of tables contained in that
database. Occasionally, instead of a list of tables, I see the words "see
object explorer details for objects in this folder". Some times I get tables
in the tables folder and some times I get the message. The number of tables
isn't changing in t his database.

We use object explorer to drag column names to the query window. Not having
this functinality is a problem. Any ideas why this occurs? Is there a way
to force tables to always be displayed in the "tables" folder?

While the number of tables may not be changing, if there is a large number
there certainly can be a limitation in what Object Explorer is willing to
display. Different behavior at different times could be a factor of how much
RAM is available on the client machine at the time and what else is using
resources. How many tables are there? Do they show if you hit F7?



On 5/18/09 7:14 PM, in article
964B1347-FDEA-446A-BA2B-2A7BDA90DD3E...soft (DOT) com, "Bill D"
<billd101 (AT) newsgroup (DOT) nospam> wrote:

The database in question has just under 3000 tables. They do show up in
object explorer details.

One user experiencing this problem has a desktop with 3GB of ram. She
rebooted and just started SSMS. She still can't see the tables in object
explorer. I can see the tables on my desktop and I have only 1GB of ram. I
have sysadmin on this server and the user doesn't. That is the only
difference I know of. Also, this problem doesn't occur in 2005 SSMS.

"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

Well, that is a lot.

Right, and object explorer and object explorer details are very different
animals. There is a chance that if you turned on all the options in object
explorer details (right-click the column header and check all the options)
you would see the problem there as well.

Well, did you try connecting from her machine using your credentials? (Also
why does the sysadmin have less RAM than the person < sysadmin? Something
seems wrong there. :-))

Newer versions have more features, and more features mean more resource
usage. So I'm not entirely surprised this is true. (Also, when was the
last time you tried from her machine in the 2005 tools? Is it possible the
tables have increased since then?)

Also please see:

http://connect.microsoft.com/sql/fee...edbackID=36245
3


On 5/19/09 2:11 PM, in article
9EDF1321-EED4-4F7D-97F2-2E53F52727EA...soft (DOT) com, "Bill D"
<billd101 (AT) newsgroup (DOT) nospam> wrote:

When I click on this link I get an error saying "Page not found" I tried
loggging in to Connect and searching feedback, but the search doesn't return
anything.

"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

Is it possible that when you clicked the link the 3 was missing? Which
means your news reader cuts off the link one character too short. Maybe I
can make it simpler:

http://is.gd/BsXw


On 5/19/09 8:14 PM, in article
FB6F15A2-3A13-49BF-BEA7-3236A9ACF57C...soft (DOT) com, "Bill D"
<billd101 (AT) newsgroup (DOT) nospam> wrote:

This link explains the problem. I provided feedback on Connect. Thank you
for finding this information.

"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote: