InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 22 May 2013 03:30:36 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (4/17/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I know others have already objected on this one, but I decided to post anyway. [/quote]ditto. I won't post the code I put together after blinking, with boggled mind, at the answer, because apart from making customers ints instead of strings and sales ints instead of money (is it the number of vacuum cleaners sold, or the sales revenue) and using different numbers it's the same as yours. [quote]I have to disagree with the answer given, based on actual tests. I also tested it with the same test, using float instead of money for the sales data type, and still got the same results from both queries.I think the person who wrote the question mistook the difference between "is the code the same" and "are floating point operations deterministic".[/quote]I think you've got that slightly wrong: the FP operations are indeed deterministic on a particular machine, but a string of such operations is not order-independent. Or are T-SQL floating point operations really indeterminate? - that would be quite startling! (Anyway, it can be argued that the result of calculation A is the same as the result of calculation B provided each is within the limt of the other's rounding error, so those apparent differences don't count. )[/quote]May be a 3rd answer like floating point operations deterministic would helped. Moreover, the datatype of the sales column or the sample DB used is not specified.Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:24:12 GMTSathishKhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]Tom.Thomson (8/11/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]SanDroid (8/11/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]UMG Developer (3/12/2011)[/b][hr]Years later and the question is still broken... ;)[/quote]Yes it is. You have to wonder where was Steve? He has stepped in for questions that were better for this. Like the one BitBucket posted yesterday. Hrmm three years later still has the wrong idea about QOTD.[/quote]Completely broken. Since the optimiser may choose different evaluation techniques dependent on available resources for a given query, causing addition operations in the calculation of a SUM aggregate, the argument presented about slightly different reusults when float is used applies to two instances of the same query - so by the logic of this QoTD a query is not even the same as itself. And why bring floats (and small differences) into the argument? Is this an assert the nonsense (to perpetuate the myth if you want to express it that way) that arithmetic using exact numerics is not subject to dependecy on evaluation order while floats are? Lets take int, or numeric(p,s), or money as the datatype and worry only about enormous differences, not small ones - and we'll still find that a query isn't equivalent to itself since the evaluation order can change depending on (environmental) factors other than the data, and the computation of an aggregate may produce a valid result or produce arithmetic overflow for identical data but a different evaluation order. For example is we want the sum of 20000 numbers of which 10000 have the values {power(2,30)-i: i in 1..10000} and the other 10000 have the values {i-power(2,30): i in 1..10000} using the int datatype; the result is very obviously order dependent) - a very small proportion of possible evaluation orders will deliver 0, all other evaluation orders will deliver an error.[/quote]Tom, your math is impecable and correct as always. To be exact though, I meant broken in another way. As in unable to admint when you have made a mistake, and take mesures to correct the ones you have made. Have a good Friday and Peace to you. :cool:Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:24:55 GMTSanDroidhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]SanDroid (8/11/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]UMG Developer (3/12/2011)[/b][hr]Years later and the question is still broken... ;)[/quote]Yes it is. You have to wonder where was Steve? He has stepped in for questions that were better for this. Like the one BitBucket posted yesterday. Hrmm three years later still has the wrong idea about QOTD.[/quote]Completely broken. Since the optimiser may choose different evaluation techniques dependent on available resources for a given query, causing addition operations in the calculation of a SUM aggregate, the argument presented about slightly different reusults when float is used applies to two instances of the same query - so by the logic of this QoTD a query is not even the same as itself. And why bring floats (and small differences) into the argument? Is this an assert the nonsense (to perpetuate the myth if you want to express it that way) that arithmetic using exact numerics is not subject to dependecy on evaluation order while floats are? Lets take int, or numeric(p,s), or money as the datatype and worry only about enormous differences, not small ones - and we'll still find that a query isn't equivalent to itself since the evaluation order can change depending on (environmental) factors other than the data, and the computation of an aggregate may produce a valid result or produce arithmetic overflow for identical data but a different evaluation order. For example is we want the sum of 20000 numbers of which 10000 have the values {power(2,30)-i: i in 1..10000} and the other 10000 have the values {i-power(2,30): i in 1..10000} using the int datatype; the result is very obviously order dependent) - a very small proportion of possible evaluation orders will deliver 0, all other evaluation orders will deliver an error.Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:55:48 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]UMG Developer (3/12/2011)[/b][hr]Years later and the question is still broken... ;)[/quote]Yes it is. You have to wonder where was Steve? He has stepped in for questions that were better for this. Like the one BitBucket posted yesterday. Hrmm three years later still has the wrong idea about QOTD.Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:49:43 GMTSanDroidhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxYears later and the question is still broken... ;)Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:36:58 GMTUMG Developerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I know others have already objected on this one, but I decided to post anyway. [/quote]ditto. I won't post the code I put together after blinking, with boggled mind, at the answer, because apart from making customers ints instead of strings and sales ints instead of money (is it the number of vacuum cleaners sold, or the sales revenue) and using different numbers it's the same as yours. [quote]I have to disagree with the answer given, based on actual tests. I also tested it with the same test, using float instead of money for the sales data type, and still got the same results from both queries.I think the person who wrote the question mistook the difference between "is the code the same" and "are floating point operations deterministic".[/quote]I think you've got that slightly wrong: the FP operations are indeed deterministic on a particular machine, but a string of such operations is not order-independent. Or are T-SQL floating point operations really indeterminate? - that would be quite startling! (Anyway, it can be argued that the result of calculation A is the same as the result of calculation B provided each is within the limt of the other's rounding error, so those apparent differences don't count. )Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:26:30 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxUmmm . . .[url]http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb510427.aspx[/url]:angry:Am I missing something here?Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:50:28 GMTRay Khttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxHiIn the MSDN blog says both the code is same. But the answer returned in wrong.could you please help us which one is correct ?Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:55:31 GMTBalachandrahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI think, there is some mistake in the correct answer. Both the queries are same in the sense that they return same resultset. In the explanation of the question, it is said that they are 'equivalent' so the correct answer should be 'they are same'.Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:39:53 GMTmayur.parmarhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxThe correct answer is "They are the same AND if you are using float type for monetary data, you should be summarily tarred and feathered."Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:20:22 GMTtwalpolehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI agree. Without the background of the question, either answer could be correct all hinging on the datatype which wasn't spelled out. If anything the QOTD's at least get us to look deeper into the product features and documentation, although it is nice when you get the answer correct, and in this case I believe the answer could be either.Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:02:42 GMTdgabelehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx... and there's my 2 points back!Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:35:19 GMTNofferhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI agree with everyone else. How am I supposed to know that "sales" is a float? ... there's 1 point backThu, 25 Sep 2008 13:34:45 GMTNofferhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxJust about the first things I learnt about floating point numbers (over 35 years ago) was a) never compare actual equality, and b) actual results that are equivalent algebraicly can differ (e.g. A + B + C might not equal C + A + B, especially if A & B are 'large numbers' and 'A + B' & C are 'close to zero'.So to say that the resulting datasets could be different with floating point point is spurious. In theory, running the IDENTICAL aggregate T-SQL statement on IDENTICAL rows with floating point data could give DIFFERENT resulting datasets if the rows are [processed] in a different order; i.e. the resulting datasets will be 'similar' but not 'identical'. In other words, they'll [usually] be 'close enough' for real-world applications. SO GIMME MY POINTS!Well, I get one for posting anyway - maybe I should just post again ...Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:57:48 GMTbrewmanzhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]Chirag (9/24/2008)[/b][hr]BitBucket - Pls be carefull next time. We are here to discuss/debate SQL server and not language issues.[/quote]Well said and correctly pointed out....:)Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:43:42 GMTAnipaulhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxBitBucket - Pls be carefull next time. We are here to discuss/debate SQL server and not language issues.Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:08:44 GMTChiragNShttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxWhile the intention was good (showing new features of SQL Server 2008), I give up on the equivalent vs. same wording. maybe this is an intentional trap that obviously 50% of the respondent fell to. Maybe next time I should just wait till the answer comes out before I answer if the question smells fishy :w00t:*turning off the notification for this thread... couldn't care less now*Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:59:55 GMTIggy-SQLhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxThere is a remark in BOL saying 'Aggregates on floating-point numbers might return slightly different results.' Where in the question does it say that the sales column is a floating point data type? I typically use Numeric when needing decimal places.Plus the two queries used in this question are ripped directly, ver-batim from BOL and BOL (under GROUPING SETS Equivalents) says they are equivalent. There is no explicit label that 'sales' is a floating point datatype in the BOL page either.Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:47:40 GMTYeshuaAgapaohttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (9/24/2008)[/b][hr]Don't worry about the English-language aspect of the question.[/quote].Agree with that, but it is a bit disturbing that we are now down to arguing about semantics. To me, being fluent in five languages, the words "same" and "equivalent" aren't really equivalent, but are used interchangeably in common use, which is fair enough.[quote]By the definition being used to justify the answer on this one, neither query is equivalent to itself, since floating point operations are not guaranteed to give identical results in any circumstances.Thus, the first query isn't equivalent to itself, and the second query isn't equivalent to itself, and neither is equivalent to the other. At least, per the post justifying the negative answer.[/quote]Like this statement. Geez, how will we ever be able to prove that our re-written statements or re-factored applications produce the same result as the original one.[quote]Personally, I disagree with that, but that's obviously the intent here.The question was on a good subject. I wasn't aware of that feature of 2008. Neat, potentially powerful feature. I can think of plenty of uses for it in reporting.[/quote]If that was the intent, then I think it was misguided. The objective of this site is to teach people about SQL, not about grammar. Admitted, it pointed one to a new feature in 2K8 T-SQL (of which I was aware by the way), but the question was stated so badly that a long thread like this had to develop. Not the first one in the last month or two that caused so much controversy.[quote]But I do disagree with the answer and the justification for the answer[/quote]So do I.Regards,JanWed, 24 Sep 2008 11:50:38 GMTjkernerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI think it's interesting that, with nearly 1000 responses, the answers are nearly split 50/50. In general, this community does get the QotD right more often than not, so 50/50 reflects the fact that knowledgeable members got the "wrong" answer (which I think was correct - they are equivalent). However, the fact that 1/2 the respondents got the "right" answer suggests either that this question was more confusing than I initially thought, or that a lot of people have waited until the answers were posted to actually come and submit their response.Just my 2 cents....EricFWed, 24 Sep 2008 09:09:40 GMTEric M Flammhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxDon't worry about the English-language aspect of the question. By the definition being used to justify the answer on this one, neither query is equivalent to itself, since floating point operations are not guaranteed to give identical results in any circumstances.Thus, the first query isn't equivalent to itself, and the second query isn't equivalent to itself, and neither is equivalent to the other. At least, per the post justifying the negative answer.Personally, I disagree with that, but that's obviously the intent here.The question was on a good subject. I wasn't aware of that feature of 2008. Neat, potentially powerful feature. I can think of plenty of uses for it in reporting. But I do disagree with the answer and the justification for the answer.Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:47:41 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]Iggy (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]Since when is QotD about English (grammar/syntax/meaning/whatever it's called)? Not everyone here have English as their native tongue. I'd like to think this site is a worldwide community, not just English community. Guess I'm wrong? :ermm:[/quote]I can sympathize, but for me, having English as my first (only) language was not an advantage. :)Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:52:45 GMTCliff Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]HanShi (9/23/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]bitbucket (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.[/quote]As a non-native english speaker I'm unaware of such small differences between the meaning of words.For me: Same == Equivalent :ermm:But you are right about touching new aspects of SQL Server...[/quote]Tricky question. As per English Same and Equivalent are synonyms. But agree with you for tauching a new concept of SQLserver.Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:02:15 GMTAnipaulhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]bitbucket (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.[/quote]Since when is QotD about English (grammar/syntax/meaning/whatever it's called)? Not everyone here have English as their native tongue. I'd like to think this site is a worldwide community, not just English community. Guess I'm wrong? :ermm:Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:47:03 GMTIggy-SQLhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI just tested both queries in a copy of 2008 Enterprise, and the only difference in the results was the order (which, by RDBMS definition, doesn't matter).Here's my test:[code]create table #T (Customer varchar(10),Year int,Sales money);insert into #T (Customer, Year, Sales)values ('Joe', 2007, 10),('Joe', 2008, 15),('Bob', 2008, 5);SELECT customer, year, SUM(sales)FROM #TGROUP BY GROUPING SETS ((customer), (year));SELECT customer, NULL as year, SUM(sales)FROM #T GROUP BY customerUNION ALLSELECT NULL as customer, year, SUM(sales)FROM #T GROUP BY year;[/code]I know others have already objected on this one, but I decided to post anyway.I have to disagree with the answer given, based on actual tests. I also tested it with the same test, using float instead of money for the sales data type, and still got the same results from both queries.I think the person who wrote the question mistook the difference between "is the code the same" and "are floating point operations deterministic".Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:29:35 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI AGREE! If the person who wrote the question is going to copy the example from BOL, you can AT LEAST get the answer right!!Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:57:13 GMTScott Klein-508332http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxThis question is an exact copy and paste for BOL (ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v10/MS.SQLSVR.v10.en/s10de_1devconc/html/136b4545-fd48-412f-8163-fadc3a235d36.htm). And according to BOL, the 2 statements are the same.....Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:25 GMTBrian Fergusonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxThe question states "is the same as" and the term "equivalent" used in the explanation are essentially equal in meaning. They could be substituted and are generally considered equal in meaning and application. That being said, of course, I wanted the point!Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:15:07 GMTBarbWhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]Miles Neale (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]Great Question. I got it right but for the wrong reason. After the explanation I see most people's point about the same not being the same.I always thought that 1 + 2 = 3, and that 2 + 1 = 3, so they are equivalent right? Does 1 + 2 = 2 + 1? Or are the so different as to make one wonder? Miles...[/quote]Right!..In a few words: The result is THE SAME, and the procedure is EQUIVALENT.Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:15:17 GMTRic Sierrahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxDue is a tricky question I think both answers could be correct.And I want my points back!:w00t:Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:09:16 GMTRic Sierrahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]Miles Neale (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]Great Question. I got it right but for the wrong reason. After the explanation I see most people's point about the same not being the same.I always thought that 1 + 2 = 3, and that 2 + 1 = 3, so they are equivalent right? Does 1 + 2 = 2 + 1? Or are the so different as to make one wonder? [/quote]Looked at as simple text, Query 1 (using GROUPING SETS) is not the same as Query 2 (using UNION ALL), in the same way that "1+2" is not the same as "2+1".However, most people would assume that the QoTD was asking more than a simple text comparison, i.e. is query 1 equivalent to query 2?The reference given says it is, since the queries given there are exactly as in the question! Hence the answer stated is wrong!Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:59:08 GMTDerek Dongrayhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxGreat Question. I got it right but for the wrong reason. After the explanation I see most people's point about the same not being the same.I always thought that 1 + 2 = 3, and that 2 + 1 = 3, so they are equivalent right? Does 1 + 2 = 2 + 1? Or are the so different as to make one wonder? Miles...Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:40:49 GMTMiles Nealehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI'm confused as well. The question asked if the queries were the same, not if the result sets were the same. According to the link you supplied, the queries are the same. There's not enough information to determine if the result sets would be the same. I'm not sure from your post if your suggesting that "the same" is not the same as "equivalent" or if "equivalent" is not equivalent to "the same", but I think most of us will agree that they are synonyms in this context. Either way, now were discussing semantics not SQL. Just my opinion...GregTue, 23 Sep 2008 08:56:31 GMTJestersGrindhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx... given that in the BOL article "The following statements are equivalent" suggests that in the author of the article's mind, sales is NOT a floating point data type. Otherwise, surely, the quote would be "The following statements are NOT equivalent".Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:48:39 GMTliam.stirlinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxTell me otherwise, bitbucket, but I think that you have read something into the BOL article that isn't there. Nothing says that sales is any kind of non-integer datatype - just as nothing says it isn't (in fairness). Plus, unfortunately, your use of the dictionary to justify your position is just plain confusing. I commend the fact that you have introduced me to a new part of SQL, and sparked some debate and interest, but...Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:44:21 GMTliam.stirlinghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]bitbucket (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.[/quote]I'm still confused. 'Equivalent' and 'same' are synonyms, making them interchangeable. So, I'm still struggling to understand what criteria is being used to disqualify the 2 queries from being the same.Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:39:16 GMTTim Benninghoffhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]bitbucket (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.[/quote]So you are admitting that the answer should be that they [b]are the same[/b] since they are equivalent?There's no indication that floating point number are involved (sales volumes are usually integer or even big integer) so that doesn't apply hence they will give the same values, and hence are the same.Or have I (and many others) misunderstood?Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:33:08 GMTDerek Dongrayhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI want my point back tooso, is it the SAME, or not?I initial thought was I missed the UNION vs UNION ALL, but then it did have UNION ALL, so they were the SAMEAnyway, at least I don't feel too bad about getting it "almost" correctconsidering I just finished reading the Introducing Microsoft SQL Server 2008 eBook, and reading Brad's SQL 2008 PDF now as wellTue, 23 Sep 2008 08:31:58 GMTJerry Hunghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspx[quote][b]bitbucket (9/23/2008)[/b][hr]I would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.[/quote]As a non-native english speaker I'm unaware of such small differences between the meaning of words.For me: Same == Equivalent :ermm:But you are right about touching new aspects of SQL Server...Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:13:40 GMTHanShihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic574002-1222-1.aspxI would like to thank all who have commented. I have learned a little more to apply to any additional QOD that I may submit. Please note that I relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for the words [b]equivalent[/b], and [b]same[/b] which are:Equivalent:[quote][b]equal in [/b]force, amount, or [b]value[/b] [/quote]Same:[quote][b]equal[/b] in size, shape, [b]value[/b], or importance —usually used with [b]the[/b] or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses[/quote]The main objective as I understand the QOD is to introduce readers to new and/or little known aspects of SQL Server it is my hope that this is what this question did.Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:35:58 GMTbitbucket-25253