ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx vs Reports/Pages/Report.aspx

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.

more ▼

asked Apr 11, 2012 at 07:51 AM in Default

avatar image

905 60 64 68

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

2 answers: sort voted first

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.

more ▼

answered Apr 11, 2012 at 08:06 AM

avatar image

Fatherjack ♦♦
43.8k 79 101 118

@Jonathan Allen: Thanks. In our application, we provide the users with a list of hyperlinked URLs. Clicking on one opens the SSRS report up in a separate Internet Explorer window. Given that we are using it this way, it sounds like using the Reports/Pages... URL would not cause any issues.

Apr 11, 2012 at 08:22 AM xnl28

I dont think you will get "issues" either way.

The Report Manager is the default UI to access reports and navigate between them, the report server is the way to get the report content into a custom interface. Which ever gives your users the best experience and lets them work better is the one you should implement.

Have you asked the users how they feel working with either option? I'd get some to do a usability test and work from there

Apr 11, 2012 at 09:15 AM Fatherjack ♦♦

One big issue is performance: some reports take much, much longer for the client to render when using ReportServer then when using Report Manager. I am currently experiencing this issue in 2008 R2 with a report with a few thousand rows.

Apr 11, 2012 at 09:48 AM xnl28
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

Another issue is that the Report/Report.aspx link does not honour the commands such as rc:Parameters=Collapsed and rs:format=PDF.

more ▼

answered Apr 17, 2012 at 04:32 PM

avatar image

905 60 64 68

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.



asked: Apr 11, 2012 at 07:51 AM

Seen: 31212 times

Last Updated: Apr 17, 2012 at 04:32 PM

Copyright 2018 Redgate Software. Privacy Policy