Rowcount

Question

Post reply

Rowcount

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 130 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

mukeshkane SSC-Addicted Points: 450 More actions · Answer 1

I also checked it on 2005 and the result is 1,1

how it can be 0, 1.

Can somebody explain?

Carlo Romagnano SSC-Insane Points: 22783 More actions · Answer 2

If one omits the set nocount on statement, then the results would be 1,1.

This assert is wrong.

The correct answer is 0,1, but the two statement should be the first in the connection.

SSMS or QA on new connection execute some hidden commands (see profiler.exe please).

SET NOCOUNT OFF

select @@ROWCOUNT

--or

SET NOCOUNT ON

select @@ROWCOUNT

--or

print''

select @@ROWCOUNT

return always 0,1 because SET and PRINT don't return RESULTS

Chris Houghton SSCrazy Points: 2557 More actions · Answer 3

Set NOCOUNT ON

select @@ROWCOUNT

This will return 0,1 (at least on my 2005 server)

simon.whale Ten Centuries Points: 1393 More actions · Answer 4

but without SET NOCOUNT ON/OFF or PRINT it will return (1,1)

Rick-153145 SSCrazy Points: 2823 More actions · Answer 5

Another rubbish QoTD.

Can I have my point back?

The result is (1,1). This would be the case no matter what as it is to do with how the question was asked. If it had had SET NOCOUNT ON at the beggining, then the result would be (0,1), but it doesn't.

Sort your questions out SSC

ohack SSCrazy Points: 2043 More actions · Answer 6

This question is decidedly woolly. Forget all the ifs and maybes about which client to use, which version of SQL or extra commands to include - you won't get far with databases if you can't be precise and the question wasn't.

ldorian81 SSCommitted Points: 1694 More actions · Answer 7

Answering the question from face value, I was going to choose 0,1 as the answer however, checking my logic in SQL 2005 & 2008 and both returned 1,1 as the answer no matter if it was a new window or a previously used window both returned 1,1.

My initial reasoning was that the first query should run and return no rows because nothing at that point should have returned a value, but the second would return 1 for the previous query.

Wishing now I had answered from my initial instinct but never mind. 🙂

Regards
ld

Stoke-on-Trent
United Kingdom

If at first you don't succeed, go to the pub and drink away your current thought plan.

Andeavour SSCrazy Points: 2600 More actions · Answer 8

leon_h (1/29/2010)
My initial reasoning was that the first query should run and return no rows because nothing at that point should have returned a value, but the second would return 1 for the previous query.
Wishing now I had answered from my initial instinct but never mind. 🙂

Me too. :unsure: My instincts told me (0,1), but like an idiot I tried it on several servers and got (1,1). So I picked that to be told I was wrong :rolleyes:

I do think the arguments about SET NOCOUNT are pretty much a moot point since this was not in the original question. Answering the question as it was written gives (1,1), so surely that is the correct one?

Manoj Kumar Behera Default port Points: 1450 More actions · Answer 9

Hi All,

While executing this I am getting 1,1 . Explanation?

Carolyn Richardson SSCrazy Eights Points: 8357 More actions · Answer 10

Tested on 3 versions and got...

SQL 2000 (0,1)

SQL 2005 (1,1)

SQL 2008 (1,1)

I think the question should be re-worded and answers reset if the posts on this discussion are anything to go by... Just my 3 cents worth

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable - Mark Twain
Carolyn
SQLServerSpecialists[/url]

SRatnaparkhi SSC-Addicted Points: 474 More actions · Answer 11

Hi All,

I got right answer(0,1) in SQL 2005, but this not in the fresh query window, first I executed pervious question query in query window then I executed this one, now answer is (0,1).

On the other hand when I read reply on this forums then I realize problem and execute it into the new query window then I got (1,1).

PurpleLady SSCertifiable Points: 7819 More actions · Answer 12

I tried it on 3 different servers, and interestingly enough, my SQL 2000 returned 0,1. But with the information available, I agree that 1,1 would be the correct answer.

rgillings SSCrazy Points: 2114 More actions · Answer 13

The requirements for this questions don't seem to support the given answer. Upon reading the question, my initial reaction was that the results would be 0,1.

Upon opening a new query window and executing the code, I received the results 1,1. If the code was dependent on having set NOCOUNT ON, then that should have been specified in the requirements.

This is one of the most common problems I have seen in development efforts. Poor, or lacking, requirements will result in unexpected results.

fallenstudent SSC Journeyman Points: 88 More actions · Answer 14

I also tested the code and got 1,1.

So I would have had the wrong answer even testing the code?

What is that Question good for if there are multiple result?

Noel McKinney Hall of Fame Points: 3452 More actions · Answer 15

Another QOTD where either the answer is "It depends" and/or inadequate information is given. I knew that the answer was (x,1) but there's not enough information to determine x. If my previous query had been "select * from sys.databases" then x will probably be a number larger than one. If it had been "select * from sys.databases where 0 = 1" then x is zero. If a new query window is opened then it depends on the tool (SSMS, Query Analyzer...).