Tava (1/2/2013)
To answer the question about why is DateID int and not datetime its an old table and data already in there. I assume its for an indexing/performance benefit and everything is based on dateid for searching? does that sound about right?
It is not the first time I've heard of someone being stuck with a legacy design. If you're in SQL 2008 and designing anew, using DATE datatype would provide the same indexing/performance benefit as what you've done. I actually doubt there would be a difference had the field been created as a DATETIME (just perhaps a little more application housekeeping to ensure that no time part is stored with it).
Lynn - Nice way to eliminate the dependency on DATEFIRST.
My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?
My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.
Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?[/url]
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some![/url]
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.[/url]
[url url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/St