Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
Jeff, thanks for your patience. I am learning a LOT on this thread.
Here is a variation on your code that will run faster...
June 1, 2007 at 9:02 am
Sergiy, I avoided using temporary tables for no reason. I looks like they might offer better performance.
CTE just places the block that runs first at the top of the code,...
May 31, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Ouch... I obviously did not play enough with Jeff's solution before posting, my bad...
Jeff, your solution is outstanding.
Thanks
Antonio Macedo
May 31, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Jeff,
My code took 11 minutes to process the 1000000 rows table.
That was on a single Pentium 4, 3Ghz, 1.5Gb RAM, single processor laptop.
Peter, nice use of the dense_rank function, I...
May 31, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Using the MyHead table that Jeff provided, I came up with this solution.
I am using SQL 2005 so it might need a few changes to run in older versions.
May 30, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hi All,
Here is another test that shows that the correlated subquery performs much better than the left join when dealing with a larger number of rows.
I've removed the "T2
July 17, 2006 at 10:42 am
Hi All,
I've just compared the performance between the correlated subquery and the left join solutions.
With no index, the left join performs better than correlate subquery.
Correlated Subquery = 75%
Left Join =...
July 13, 2006 at 8:49 am
Hi All,
Here is a solution that uses a correlated subquery instead of joins.
SELECT
[task]
,[date]
,[date] - (
July 13, 2006 at 7:51 am
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)