Does anyone know what the differences/benefits/recommendations/limitations are between using ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx to view SSRS reports versus using Reports/Pages/Report.aspx?
In our situation, we provide users with a list of reports which are URLs that contain ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx. I have noticed that there is a huge difference in client rendering performance when using ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx compared to using Reports/Pages/Report.aspx.
For example, a report takes about 30 seconds for the client to render when accessing via Reports/Pages/Report.aspx; the same report takes over 4 minutes for the client to render when accessing via ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx.
Interstingly, when running the reports from an SSRS 2008 server (not R2), there is no significant different in client rendering speed.
As a work-around, I'd like to use Reports/Pages/Report.aspx, but would like some suggestions from the SQL community about doing this.
There are two distinct uses for the two links that you mention. The ReportServer... link is used via an application that has a SSRS report object embedded in it. This way your users can access SSRS reports without having to leave your applications. If you dont have an application to consume the reports via the ReportServer link then simply navigating to the Reports//Pages.. URL will show you the reports in the Report Manager interface.
answered Apr 11 '12 at 08:06 AM
Another issue is that the Report/Report.aspx link does not honour the commands such as rc:Parameters=Collapsed and rs:format=PDF.
answered Apr 17 '12 at 04:32 PM