SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Kenneth Fisher / GO Part 1 / Latest Posts

RE: GO Part 1

Jamie Longstreet-481950 — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:36:18 GMT

Nice that you can't "GO" in a T-SQL statement. What a nightmare that would be for anyone trying to avoid SQL Injection issues.

RE: GO Part 1

Robin Sasson — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:38:10 GMT

Great question thanks.

RE: GO Part 1

Keld Laursen (VFL) — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:40:06 GMT

Damn!Got the go part right, but didn't read the select closely enough.But good to remember this way to create an exponentially rising number of records in a hurry.Thank you for the question.

RE: GO Part 1

Olga B — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:38:08 GMT

The benefit of replying a few days later and fully caffeinated. :DEven so, I almost missed the INSERT ... SELECT part. :hehe:Fun question, and yes, a helpful technique for populating tables with large amounts of test data.

RE: GO Part 1

Yokers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:17:25 GMT

good question, caught me out!

RE: GO Part 1

codebyo — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:04:50 GMT

[quote][b]Richard Warr (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]I looked at the first option and was disappointed that the second one wasn't[quote]Collect $200 for parsing GO.[/quote][/quote]:-DLoved the question BTW. No catch, just expected behavior.

RE: GO Part 1

Paul White — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:59:13 GMT

Good question, thanks Kenneth.

RE: GO Part 1

Revenant — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:38:18 GMT

This is a good one - ending the week on a high note. Thanks, Kenneth!

RE: GO Part 1

Rob Schripsema — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:29:56 GMT

Great question. But it was a good thing I'd had my coffee/tea before I tried answering....

RE: GO Part 1

KWymore — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:53:22 GMT

Nice question. I have used the GO x syntax a few times so for me it was just counting the numbers up correctly. Looking forward to part 2.

RE: GO Part 1

SQLRNNR — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:10:09 GMT

Thanks for the question.

RE: GO Part 1

Thomas Abraham — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:12 GMT

Thanks for the question. Went for six, as I focused on the iterations, without thinking about the select returning the just inserted rows. But, as others have said, this was a good, fun question.

RE: GO Part 1

EL Jerry — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:58:55 GMT

Excellent question, Kenneth.Almost caught by the 5, thinking it selected 1 row on every iteration.Keep these kind of questions comin'!!

RE: GO Part 1

Cliff Jones — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:53:10 GMT

Good question. I always forget that you can do that.

RE: GO Part 1

Kenneth.Fisher — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:48:07 GMT

[quote][b]Richard Warr (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]I looked at the first option and was disappointed that the second one wasn't[quote]Collect $200 for parsing GO.[/quote][/quote]I wish I had thought of that when I was writing the question!FYI the format of the question was actual from some code I've been using recently to load some data for volume testing. GO 18 get's you about half a million rows, GO 20 gets 2 mil +. :w00t:Everyone has been real positive on this question so far. Keep your fingers crossed for me on part 2.

RE: GO Part 1

Lokesh Vij — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:47:25 GMT

Lucky me...not fallen prey by the trap GO 5 :-DNice Question though..

RE: GO Part 1

Sean Lange — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:26:35 GMT

[quote][b]Richard Warr (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]I looked at the first option and was disappointed that the second one wasn't[quote]Collect $200 for parsing GO.[/quote][/quote]+1 :-DGood question. Made me stop and think before my first cup of coffee.

RE: GO Part 1

Richard Warr — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:19:31 GMT

I looked at the first option and was disappointed that the second one wasn't[quote]Collect $200 for parsing GO.[/quote]

RE: GO Part 1

sestell1 — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:03:01 GMT

Ugh, I've got to stop answering these questions first thing in the morning.Great question though!

RE: GO Part 1

Dana Medley — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:57:57 GMT

[quote][b]jeff.mason (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]What's really bad is understanding the question correctly and screwing up the loop counts because it is early in the morning. I counted the 5 loops but forgot to include the first run and ended up with 16. Once I saw it was wrong I recounted and hit my forehead with my palm.[/quote]+ 1 - 1 (palm to forehead) :-DThank you for the great question, too bad I couldn't end Friday with that point. I guess I should have learned my lesson by trying to answer QotD this early before caffeine.

RE: GO Part 1

jeff.mason — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:15:35 GMT

What's really bad is understanding the question correctly and screwing up the loop counts because it is early in the morning. I counted the 5 loops but forgot to include the first run and ended up with 16. Once I saw it was wrong I recounted and hit my forehead with my palm.

RE: GO Part 1

udayroy15 — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:30:33 GMT

Easy but tricky

RE: GO Part 1

(Bob Brown) — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:27:01 GMT

Great question that shows a feature of the GO command that I only recently learned. Excellent!

RE: GO Part 1

Raghavendra Mudugal — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:32:55 GMT

[quote][b]Michael Lysons (9/7/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]DugyC (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]What a fun question, thanks.[/quote]Actually, yeah it was - well said :-)[/quote]+1

RE: GO Part 1

Stewart "Arturius" Campbell — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:30:37 GMT

Lesson learned: Don't answer until after the first cup of strong coffee...

RE: GO Part 1

Gazareth — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:21:55 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (9/7/2012)[/b][hr] 1*2*2*2*2*2 = 6[/quote]It does equal 6! At least, that's my excuse.

RE: GO Part 1

Koen Verbeeck — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:21:32 GMT

[quote][b]Michael Lysons (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]Then again, "Is GO x valid T-SQL?" would be a boring question.:-)[/quote]And the answer is surprisingly: no.GO is not a TSQL statement, but a batch terminator recognised by sqlcmd, osql and SSMS.[url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188037.aspx]GO (Transact-SQL)[/url]

RE: GO Part 1

Michael Lysons — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:12:09 GMT

[quote][b]DugyC (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]What a fun question, thanks.[/quote]Actually, yeah it was - well said :-)

RE: GO Part 1

DugyC — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:10:56 GMT

What a fun question, thanks.

RE: GO Part 1

Michael Lysons — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:10:56 GMT

Nice question.I can see both sides of the discussion above re. whether it was "worthless" or not. I do think the head-scratching (for me, at least) over how many records would be in the table takes away from whether "GO x" is valid or not.Then again, "Is GO x valid T-SQL?" would be a boring question.:-)

RE: GO Part 1

Stuart Davies — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 02:39:58 GMT

Good questionNearly missed the 5 after the last go - then had to remember why it was significantGot my point though

RE: GO Part 1

L' Eomot Inversé — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:49:20 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (9/7/2012)[/b][hr]Good question.Two days in a row now answering early morning has proved that I shouldn't do it. Yesterday I couldn't add. Today I can't multiply (or at least I get 1*2*2*2*2*2 = 6). Evidently my brain doesn't start functioning until it has been fed and watered. :doze:[/quote]Edit: I've just noticed a failure to normalise even to 1 NF in my comment. Two days in a row is clearly a repeating group. :rolleyes:

RE: GO Part 1

L' Eomot Inversé — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:47:38 GMT

Good question.Two days in a row now answering early morning has proved that I shouldn't do it. Yesterday I couldn't add. Today I can't multiply (or at least I get 1*2*2*2*2*2 = 6). Evidently my brain doesn't start functioning until it has been fed and watered. :doze:

RE: GO Part 1

derek.colley — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:41:19 GMT

Good question, thanks, and how annoying that I couldn't spot the twist until it was too late.Lesson: Never answer QOTW before 7am.

RE: GO Part 1

Koen Verbeeck — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:34:30 GMT

[quote][b]tommyh (9/6/2012)[/b][hr]Worthless question because of the fact that you add something that doesnt really relate to the question. The key part in the question is the "GO 5" part. And by adding the select from the table in the insert you make the "GO 5" part secondary. /T[/quote]Why does it make GO 5 secondary?The GO 5 combined with the SELECT makes the insert a power of two, which is a nice twist on the question. The question still deals with the subject: a batch is repeated 5 times because it's followed by GO 5.@Kenneth: very nice question to end the week.

RE: GO Part 1

tommyh — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:15:01 GMT

Worthless question because of the fact that you add something that doesnt really relate to the question. The key part in the question is the "GO 5" part. And by adding the select from the table in the insert you make the "GO 5" part secondary. /T

RE: GO Part 1

Raghavendra Mudugal — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:14:02 GMT

Awesome. :) thank you Kenneth.1. it will insert 1 record - FROM INSERT INTO2. it will insert 1 record - But the count in table is 2 - from INSERT..SELECT3. Iteration1- Inserts 2 records - the count is 44. Iteration2- Inserts 4 records - the count is 85. Iteration3- Inserts 8 records - the count is 166. Iteration4- Inserts 16 records - the count is 32AND7. Iteration5- Inserts 32 records - the count is 64Now this is where I went wrong, actually the #2's GO is the valid first iteration, so it stops at #6 which actually completes 5 iterations. (#7 is not valid)(so simple and yet I messed up :w00t:)(Just wanted to say Thank you to all, this is been the best learning experience apart from the regular routine :-))

GO Part 1

Kenneth.Fisher — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:38:01 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]GO Part 1[/B]