More questions like this, please! They really show off that the author....

print convert(varchar(3), 0x697320) +

convert(varchar(5), 0x747279696E) +

convert(varchar(1), 0x67) +

convert(varchar(7), 0x20746F206D616B) +

convert(varchar(4), 0x65206869) +

convert(varchar(3), 0x6D7365) +

convert(varchar(8), 0x6C66207365656D20) +

convert(varchar(1), 0x6C) +

convert(varchar(3),...

Good job. Very helpful article!

Here's another way, slightly more intuitive IMO (as it does not rely on conversion to FLOAT/knowledge of SQL Server's internal date format):

select dateadd(ss, -1, dateadd(dd, 1, datediff(dd, 0, getdate())))

Why would you use 23:59:59 rather than 00:00:00 ? The latter, IMO, is more intuitive...

I thought about this some more and realized that the solution I posted won't work if the search string starts, e.g. at character 7999 and ends at 8001... I believe...

CHARINDEX will not search beyond 8000 characters in SQL Server 2000... So that function doesn't quite work as expected:

create table testsearch(textcol text)

go

declare @bigstring varchar(8000)

set @bigstring = replicate('0', 8000)

declare...

An easy way to do this with a varchar(8000) is to do something like:

declare @instring varchar(8000)

set @instring = 'abcabcabc'

declare @teststring varchar(100)

set @teststring = 'abc'

SELECT (LEN(@instring) - LEN(REPLACE(@instring, @teststring, ''))) /...

Including validation in the script earned extra points? That should deduct points, IMO. Data validation belongs in constraints, not in data access code. Yes, this was just...

That's correct. Keep in mind that indexed views were really designed to assist with performance of aggregate-heavy queries (lots of SUM, AVG, etc). A lot of developers attempt...

You can't do that in SQL Server 2000. In SQL Server 2005 you will be able to, using the APPLY operator.

If you already have a table-valued function, why bother with a view?

A table-valued function is essentially a parameterized view... (or non-parameterized, if you don't bother using parameters!)

This will return both rows 2 and 3... Both are technically overlapping, so IMO that's correct behavior. If you want only one or the other it might be possible...

BULK INSERT YourTable FROM 'YourFile' WITH (FIRSTROW=2, FIELDTERMINATOR='|')

"I have read that, under the covers, SS implements a view the same way it implements a stored proc, i.e., it creates a query plan, keeps it handy for execution,...

Joe,

You already have a Nested Sets model -- kind of. You should be able to write a cursor against your ordered select, and use that to insert row-by-row...