|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:55 PM
Points: 2,015,
Visits: 2,847
|
|
| Trick or tricky question? The incorrect got me as it did others. I should have had my coffee first.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:10 PM
Points: 2,673,
Visits: 2,418
|
|
| Good question, I definitely had to do some research.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232,
Visits: 1,046
|
|
Hugo Kornelis (11/11/2010) 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".
This also got me. Once again I had to guess and use my ESP to answer the QOTD. It was very difficult to understand that the author was asking if you could create a partion on column a in source table to column b in target table. Instead of meaning are there any limitations on the columns that can be used to create the partition.
I gift the questions No stars for trying to trick people with ambiguous answers and a weirdly positioned incorrect statement. Questions like these on the MS certification exams are what inspire people to buy study exams.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:57 PM
Points: 2,575,
Visits: 1,533
|
|
I felt that the "Partitions can be on any column" choice was ambiguous too and knew that I had a 50-50 chance of missing it based on that answer alone. I'm glad this one was only worth one point.
On the upside, I did learn about a new feature so that is good!
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:53 AM
Points: 1,662,
Visits: 1,709
|
|
A little ambiguity around Partitions can be on any column part aside, this was a very good question, thank you Stewart. Interestingly, we had a question on ASK side asking about guidelines and considerations for deleting in excess of a billion records from existing table, and the answer by Scot Hauder suggested using switch, and included a thoroughly commented sample. I am not sure wherer OP opted to use Scot's solution or not, but the answer clearly demonstrated a practical application of the technique in real life scenario, saving someone from quite a lot of hustle.
Oleg
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:47 AM
Points: 260,
Visits: 366
|
|
| read the specification, read the specification:)
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:39 PM
Points: 3,397,
Visits: 3,405
|
|
| So what would be an example of a column that could not be partitioned? My coin toss also went the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:39 PM
Points: 3,397,
Visits: 3,405
|
|
Oleg Netchaev (11/11/2010)
A little ambiguity around Partitions can be on any column part aside, this was a very good question, thank you Stewart. Interestingly, we had a question on ASK side asking about guidelines and considerations for deleting in excess of a billion records from existing table, and the answer by Scot Hauder suggested using switch, and included a thoroughly commented sample. I am not sure wherer OP opted to use Scot's solution or not, but the answer clearly demonstrated a practical application of the technique in real life scenario, saving someone from quite a lot of hustle. Oleg
Thanks for the link. That is a very useful technique.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:21 AM
Points: 2,163,
Visits: 2,148
|
|
| Thanks for the question. I missed one of the three, so I should get 66% of a point. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Journeyman
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:58 AM
Points: 96,
Visits: 210
|
|
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).
Me too! I read the "incorrect" then had to take a call as I was about to answer. After the call I checked off the "correct" answers and hit the button.
|
|
|
|