﻿<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>SQLServerCentral / Discuss Content Posted by Stefan Popovski / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author  / Finding Real Dependencies / Latest Posts</title><generator>InstantForum.NET v2.9.0</generator><description>SQLServerCentral</description><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/</link><webMaster>notifications@sqlservercentral.com</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 02:54:15 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title>RE: Finding Real Dependencies</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic18917-124-1.aspx</link><description>Overall I think this is a very good start.One thing to keep in mind is that proc names can contain embeaded underscore characters (i.e. update_company), which when used in a LIKE match can cause problems unless they are properly escaped (i.e. _ becomes [_]).  It is also valid to include statement terminators immediately after the proc name (i.e. exec run_me; )With these two points in mind, I have updated the ad-hock query WHERE comparision to look like: WHERE #T1.ProcText LIKE '%' + Replace(T2.DependOnProc,'_','[_]') + '[' + char(9)+ char(10)+ char(13)+ char(32) + char(59) + ']%'(be sure to add back in the plus characters for string concatination between each of the substring elements above -- looks like the forum software doesn't like this...) </description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:58:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>meknam</dc:creator></item><item><title>Finding Real Dependencies</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic18917-124-1.aspx</link><description>Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at &lt;A HREF=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/spopovski/findingrealdependencies.asp&gt;http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/spopovski/findingrealdependencies.asp&lt;/A&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>s_popovski</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>