To switch or not to switch

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss content posted by Stewart Campbell » To switch or not to switch

25 posts, Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 »»»

To switch or not to switch

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Stewart "Arturius" Campbell

Posted Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:10 PM

Hall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 8:31 AM
Points: 3,129, Visits: 4,312

Comments posted to this topic are about the item To switch or not to switch

____________________________________________
Space, the final frontier? not any more...
All limits henceforth are self-imposed.
“libera tute vulgaris ex”

Post #1019057

sharath.chalamgari

Posted Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:45 PM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 17, 2012 7:30 AM
Points: 1,038, Visits: 679

Thnaks for the Question.

I have learned something new today

may be this link is also usefull:

http://sqlserverpedia.com/wiki/Switching_Partitions_-_Prerequisites

Post #1019064

Mighty

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:59 AM

SSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:33 AM
Points: 2,723, Visits: 987

Looking at the percentage of incorrect results, and the percentages per answer, I wonder if people missed the "in" in "incorrect" in the question.

Post #1019138

ipounder

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:26 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 8:31 AM
Points: 1,040, Visits: 121

Mmmm...
Correct answer says 'Source and target tables do NOT have to share the same filegroup'. Explanation says they do....

Have I missed something?

Post #1019165

ipounder

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:29 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 8:31 AM
Points: 1,040, Visits: 121

Yep. I missed something - as th eprviuous poster said I was supposed to be selecting the incorrect answers.

Doh!

Post #1019170

DugyC

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:29 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:25 AM
Points: 1,165, Visits: 731

Mighty (11/11/2010)

Looking at the percentage of incorrect results, and the percentages per answer, I wonder if people missed the "in" in "incorrect" in the question.

Yep, that's what happened to me! Oh FFS!! Must take more time to read the question properly!

Ermm

_____________________________________________________________________
"The difficult tasks we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer"

Post #1019171

Hugo Kornelis

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:49 AM

SSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:49 PM
Points: 5,244, Visits: 7,063

A good question, that made me think twice.

Two minor issues though.

1. The negation in the question is a needless extra complication. It would have been better to ask which of the listed rules are correct. (Even after realizing that the question asked for incorrect, I still found myself ticking the correct ones - human psychology works like that).

2. The rule "Partitions can be on any column" is ambiguous. I was sure I had the rest right, but felt like taking a 50% gamble with this one - did the question author want this to be interpreted as "There are restrictions on the type of partitioning column you choose in both tables", or as "There are no restrictions no the type of partitioning column chosen, except that it has to be the same in both".

The text written by Microsoft in the referenced Books Online article is also a bit strange. First, it says: "The tables must have the same columns with the same names and the same data type, length, collation, precision, scale, nullability". And then it says: "Nullability of the partitioning columns must match". Yeah, I know. That was already implied by the requirement that nullability of ALL columns must match Tongue

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
Visit my SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis

Post #1019187

SequelSurfer

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:33 AM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:00 AM
Points: 357, Visits: 978

Ambiguous answers to the question I think. The explanations make sense but the way the answers are worded leave a lot to be desired. I think the spread of answers amongst the community shows that the question could have been directed somewhat better. Unsure

Post #1019207

Geoff A

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:41 AM

SSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:10 AM
Points: 485, Visits: 1,568

Mighty (11/11/2010)

Looking at the percentage of incorrect results, and the percentages per answer, I wonder if people missed the "in" in "incorrect" in the question.

lmao.. +1 here Tongue

Post #1019242

vk-kirov

Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:04 AM

Hall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:30 AM
Points: 3,192, Visits: 4,151

"Partitions can be on any column" – this was way too ambiguous... I thought this option was about the column with the same name in both tables (because of the singular "column", not plural "columns").

Post #1019265

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

25 posts, Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 »»»

Permissions