SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Wayne Sheffield / BIT Conversions / Latest Posts

RE: BIT Conversions

manik123 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:32:55 GMT

good questions......manik123**********

RE: BIT Conversions

Koen Verbeeck — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:21:42 GMT

Great question, thanks.

RE: BIT Conversions

Revenant — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:57:19 GMT

Thanks for an easy one, Wayne!

RE: BIT Conversions

KWymore — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:02:50 GMT

Nice question. Made me pause for a moment. Thanks!

RE: BIT Conversions

WayneS — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:50:00 GMT

[quote][b]buntyteg (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]in correct answer -1,1 is correct but how 25 is correctmeans to say... in bit datatype how we can store 25 (2 digit) value??????[/quote]If it helps, think of it this way:[code="sql"]DECLARE @BitValue BIT;SET @BitValue = CASE WHEN ValueToConvert = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 1 END;[/code]

RE: BIT Conversions

Hugo Kornelis — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:40:11 GMT

[quote][b]buntyteg (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]means to say... in bit datatype how we can store 25 (2 digit) value[/quote]No. Any value other than 0 is converted to 1. So 1 is stored as given, and both -1 and 25 are converted to 1. (Which, by some tools, is interpreted and shown as [i]true[/i]).

RE: BIT Conversions

buntyteg — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:28:05 GMT

in correct answer -1,1 is correct but how 25 is correctmeans to say... in bit datatype how we can store 25 (2 digit) value??????

RE: BIT Conversions

Nadrek — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:49:44 GMT

[quote][b]Thomas Abraham (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]Excellent question. I particularly like questions, like this one, that highlight areas where the behavior is not as one might think, or is different than you might find in other languages. These are the gotchas that you have to know. Thanks![/quote]Agreed. SQL syntax is essentially old C syntax - 0 is false, nonzero is true.

RE: BIT Conversions

SQLRNNR — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:06:29 GMT

Good job Wayne - good question.

RE: BIT Conversions

EL Jerry — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:06:36 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (8/14/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Hugo Kornelis (8/14/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]WayneS (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]One of the things that I'm trying to learn is to write better QotD questions. It looks like most that have responded here about missing it have acknowledged not reading the question carefully. So, how could this question have been written better?(The only thing that I can think of is to have bolded the "as a true / 1 value".)[/quote]Hi Wayne,I see nothing wrong with this question. As long as you take the time to read the entire question, I fail to see how one could misunderstand it.Maybe people who misread the question were only flying over the text and making assumptions on what the question is?[/quote]+1Definitely nothing wrong, no trick, no ambiguity, and absolutely straightforward wording.[/quote]I also agree there is nothing wrong with it. We must read and analyze the question.Great question, Wayne!!

RE: BIT Conversions

tilew-948340 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:06:11 GMT

Easy question as I had to face it in my programming some time ago!Thanks!

RE: BIT Conversions

roryp 96873 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:55:16 GMT

I have to agree that this was a great question and don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. I think the "trap" may have been people knowing how the bit data type behaves in SQL Server and reading only what they wanted to read in the question. I'll admit, I saw it was a bit data type then read "which of the following values will be inserted" and almost went directly to answering without finishing the question since I was familiar with bit conversions. Fortunately I stopped myself, read the ENTIRE question, then answered.

RE: BIT Conversions

L' Eomot Inversé — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:40:45 GMT

[quote][b]Hugo Kornelis (8/14/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]WayneS (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]One of the things that I'm trying to learn is to write better QotD questions. It looks like most that have responded here about missing it have acknowledged not reading the question carefully. So, how could this question have been written better?(The only thing that I can think of is to have bolded the "as a true / 1 value".)[/quote]Hi Wayne,I see nothing wrong with this question. As long as you take the time to read the entire question, I fail to see how one could misunderstand it.Maybe people who misread the question were only flying over the text and making assumptions on what the question is?[/quote]+1Definitely nothing wrong, no trick, no ambiguity, and absolutely straightforward wording.

RE: BIT Conversions

bitbucket-25253 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:11:25 GMT

[quote]One of the things that I'm trying to learn is to write better QotD questions. It looks like most that have responded here about missing it have acknowledged not reading the question carefully. So, how could this question have been written better?(The only thing that I can think of is to have bolded the "as a true / 1 value".)Wayne[/quote]Might I suggest that it would have been clearer for myself, and maybe for others, if the wording was:"How many of these values will be inserted as a 1 into the BitVal column ?"

RE: BIT Conversions

WayneS — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:11:03 GMT

RE: BIT Conversions

Hugo Kornelis — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:48:02 GMT

[quote][b]WayneS (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]One of the things that I'm trying to learn is to write better QotD questions. It looks like most that have responded here about missing it have acknowledged not reading the question carefully. So, how could this question have been written better?(The only thing that I can think of is to have bolded the "as a true / 1 value".)[/quote]Hi Wayne,I see nothing wrong with this question. As long as you take the time to read the entire question, I fail to see how one could misunderstand it.Maybe people who misread the question were only flying over the text and making assumptions on what the question is?

RE: BIT Conversions

sestell1 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:43:11 GMT

Nice question!

RE: BIT Conversions

WayneS — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:37:29 GMT

[quote][b]Dana Medley (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]I almost fell prey to the wording of the question, but after reading it twice I realized my original answers were incorrect. Thank you for the great question.[/quote]Dana,I'm curious about the "I almost fell prey to the wording of the question" - what was there in this question that got you feeling this way? (I'm trying to get better at writing these QotD's).

RE: BIT Conversions

WayneS — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:35:37 GMT

[quote][b]Jan.Sundbye (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]Good one. Once again I fell right into the trap. Must remember to RTFQ / RTFS (Read the **** Question / Statement)[/quote]Jan,I was trying to not have a "trap". What about this question do you consider to have been a trap? (I'm trying to get better at writing these QotD's).

RE: BIT Conversions

WayneS — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:34:33 GMT

One of the things that I'm trying to learn is to write better QotD questions. It looks like most that have responded here about missing it have acknowledged not reading the question carefully. So, how could this question have been written better?(The only thing that I can think of is to have bolded the "as a true / 1 value".)

RE: BIT Conversions

GeauxCode — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:33:11 GMT

[quote][b]davoscollective (8/14/2012)[/b][hr]Ack! I can explain why the 32%.I read the question and thought the trick was about the numbers that weren't 1 or 0 and went ahead and ticked all the boxes knowing they would all be inserted. ... but not all as True.Doh!My fault for not answering it carefully.[/quote]+1 I should know better than to answer before my first cup of coffee...

RE: BIT Conversions

mtassin — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:49:27 GMT

Good back to basics question... I'm glad I had my morning coffee first or I would have missed the 1/True bit. :)

RE: BIT Conversions

Thomas Abraham — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:43:40 GMT

Excellent question. I particularly like questions, like this one, that highlight areas where the behavior is not as one might think, or is different than you might find in other languages. These are the gotchas that you have to know. Thanks!

RE: BIT Conversions

Dana Medley — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:41:11 GMT

I almost fell prey to the wording of the question, but after reading it twice I realized my original answers were incorrect. Thank you for the great question.

RE: BIT Conversions

JoseACJr — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:59:46 GMT

..although I have been wrong,Good question!

RE: BIT Conversions

Prassad Dabbada V R — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:47:50 GMT

Good question, my bad is I just ignored 1 so I checked only -1 and 25 I missed out 1 :-)

RE: BIT Conversions

L' Eomot Inversé — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:47:03 GMT

Good question.A lot of careless readers around today - 31% (about 80) so far have picked 0, and I suspect the number of those who picked that for some other reason that having misread the question is very small indeed.

RE: BIT Conversions

codebyo — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:59:47 GMT

Excellent question, Wayne.Thank you.

RE: BIT Conversions

SQL Surfer '66 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:13:40 GMT

Good one. Once again I fell right into the trap. Must remember to RTFQ / RTFS (Read the **** Question / Statement)

RE: BIT Conversions

(Bob Brown) — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:12:21 GMT

I was very careful with this one. Have been burnt too many times by not reading the question closely. Great question Wayne!

RE: BIT Conversions

rodjkidd — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:58:57 GMT

Doh!Good question, my bad for missing the as True/ 1 part. I knew they would all insert correctly...Must remember to read question after having coffee!Rodders...

RE: BIT Conversions

Stewart "Arturius" Campbell — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:46:40 GMT

Good back-to-basics question, thanks Wayne

RE: BIT Conversions

davoscollective — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:06:07 GMT

Ack! I can explain why the 32%.I read the question and thought the trick was about the numbers that weren't 1 or 0 and went ahead and ticked all the boxes knowing they would all be inserted. ... but not all as True.Doh!My fault for not answering it carefully.

RE: BIT Conversions

arthurolcot — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:23:45 GMT

Nice question. Surprised at the number selecting '0' as an answer though. 32% presently.

BIT Conversions

WayneS — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:49:21 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]BIT Conversions[/B]