SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by bitbucket / VIEW - 9 / Latest Posts

RE: VIEW - 9

jfgoude — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:32:32 GMT

Sorry but I think it's a bit tricky to create an indexed view with no index !not really a knwledge question but a question about attentive reading

RE: VIEW - 9

KWymore — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:28:59 GMT

Nice question, thanks.

RE: VIEW - 9

Paul White — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:05:49 GMT

[quote][b]Hugo Kornelis (10/15/2012)[/b][hr]At first sight, I thought this was a question to check whether indexed views can have their own statistics. I did not know that, so I set out to research that, and I thought this was a great question.[/quote]I would have preferred a question worded that way too. It checks the same knowledge and offers the same learning opportunity.[quote]Than, I (luckily) doublechecked the question - and found that it is actually a question that tests my ability to read carefully, and to not fall victim to suggested information.[/quote]Same here - except I didn't spot the trap. People who know me may not be surprised to hear that I know manual and auto-statistics can be created on views (and why they are only used when the NOEXPAND hint is used), but still got this question 'wrong'. The same thing happened with the previous instalment in this series - I knew the correct SET options, but missed spotting the WITH SCHEMABINDING omission.[quote]Ron has already submitted a lot of questions, and I have never seen him intentionally try to trick people, so I am sure that it was not his intention to make this a trick question either.[/quote]Perhaps - it is hard to know. My personal preference would be to make the questions completely free of 'trickery'.

RE: VIEW - 9

@Cassie — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:58:16 GMT

This questions shows once more the variety of things you can do with MSSQL.Great!

RE: VIEW - 9

cfradenburg — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:13:18 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (10/14/2012)[/b][hr]I wonder how many people will fail to notice that although you've got everything ready to create the index you haven't actually done so, so the view is not indexed and can't have statistics.[/quote]Exactly why I got it wrong. I didn't spend the time to read through the question carefully.

RE: VIEW - 9

mtassin — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:54:49 GMT

My only thought was.... where is the index for the statistics?I kept trying to figure out a way that would have allowed for the statistics, but couldn't come up with one.Yay +1 for me.

RE: VIEW - 9

Erav — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:25:53 GMT

Nice question.:-) thanks!!

RE: VIEW - 9

Erav — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:22:19 GMT

A very good question.:-)

RE: VIEW - 9

(Bob Brown) — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:17:47 GMT

Great Monday morning question. Thanks.

RE: VIEW - 9

Stewart "Arturius" Campbell — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:12:42 GMT

Good question, thanks Ron

RE: VIEW - 9

Hugo Kornelis — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:55:38 GMT

[quote][b]Richard Warr (10/15/2012)[/b][hr]Would there also be a difference between dbo.c_view and dbo.C_view if you had case sensitive collation set?[/quote]Yes, if your database uses case sensitive collation, "c_view" is different from "C_view". (And "dbo" is also different frmo "Dbo").

RE: VIEW - 9

Richard Warr — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:49:31 GMT

Would there also be a difference between dbo.c_view and dbo.C_view if you had case sensitive collation set?

RE: VIEW - 9

call.copse — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:31:40 GMT

I thought this one was pretty clear and unambiguous, no trickery just the knowledge / research required to amswer it.

RE: VIEW - 9

Koen Verbeeck — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:21:31 GMT

[quote][b]Hugo Kornelis (10/15/2012)[/b][hr]At first sight, I thought this was a question to check whether indexed views can have their own statistics. I did not know that, so I set out to research that, and I thought this was a great question.Than, I (luckily) doublechecked the question - and found that it is actually a question that tests my ability to read carefully, and to not fall victim to suggested information.The way the question is worded (with the starting words: "I set the options to support [i]indexed[/i] views" (emmphasis mine) suggests that the view is indexed. It is very easy to overlook the fact that no index is created, hence it is a normal, unindexed view.Ron has already submitted a lot of questions, and I have never seen him intentionally try to trick people, so I am sure that it was not his intention to make this a trick question either.[/quote]+1I did not read carefully :-D

RE: VIEW - 9

Hugo Kornelis — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:01:10 GMT

At first sight, I thought this was a question to check whether indexed views can have their own statistics. I did not know that, so I set out to research that, and I thought this was a great question.Than, I (luckily) doublechecked the question - and found that it is actually a question that tests my ability to read carefully, and to not fall victim to suggested information.The way the question is worded (with the starting words: "I set the options to support [i]indexed[/i] views" (emmphasis mine) suggests that the view is indexed. It is very easy to overlook the fact that no index is created, hence it is a normal, unindexed view.Ron has already submitted a lot of questions, and I have never seen him intentionally try to trick people, so I am sure that it was not his intention to make this a trick question either.

RE: VIEW - 9

DugyC — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:51:32 GMT

I'm not very offay with Views, not used them much at all.However after the last question like this I knew it needed that clustered index so got the answer right this time round.Great questions, cheers.

RE: VIEW - 9

demonfox — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:36:21 GMT

nice question ..

RE: VIEW - 9

Lokesh Vij — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:02:08 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (10/14/2012)[/b][hr]Fun question.I wonder how many people will fail to notice that although you've got everything ready to create the index you haven't actually done so, so the view is not indexed and can't have statistics.[/quote]Correct answers: [b]79%[/b] (33)Incorrect answers: [b]21%[/b] (9)9/42 already failed to noticed this..

RE: VIEW - 9

Lokesh Vij — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:59:53 GMT

Ah..Good question to begin with our Monday morning :-)

RE: VIEW - 9

L' Eomot Inversé — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:06:08 GMT

Fun question.I wonder how many people will fail to notice that although you've got everything ready to create the index you haven't actually done so, so the view is not indexed and can't have statistics.

RE: VIEW - 9

SQLRNNR — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:16:55 GMT

Nice Question Ron.

VIEW - 9

bitbucket-25253 — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:07:55 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]VIEW - 9[/B]