Viewing 15 posts - 8,431 through 8,445 (of 9,720 total)
Fernando,
You actually have a pretty good solution. Unless the table information needs to be further processed, that proc is a quick and dirty way to get the list. The proc...
March 9, 2009 at 11:08 am
You're asking us to diagnose a problem without telling us what your error is or your expected results from the comparison. If you truly believe a table JOIN is not...
March 9, 2009 at 11:00 am
A note on "sessions". In SSMS, a session is one continuously open query window or, in other SQL apps, one continuous connection. You can't do Identity Insert in two separate...
March 9, 2009 at 10:57 am
Did any of our comments help? Is your problem resolved?
March 9, 2009 at 10:52 am
Lynn,
I'm not talking values. I'm talking names. If the collation is not the same as the one he listed, then the name "trade_date" might not be the column name.
But again,...
March 9, 2009 at 10:43 am
Matt Miller (3/9/2009)
Why wouldn't it guarantee uniqueness? You end up with distinct combinations of each item in the GROUP BY list, which is essentially what the DISTINCT will do....
March 9, 2009 at 10:41 am
I put the Domain User in the Administrators Group and also in the 'sysadmin' Server DB Role.
ACK! Domain Admin BAD karma for security reasons. Make the user account a plain...
March 9, 2009 at 10:36 am
I understand what you're saying about the timestamp perfectly. However, you're still sending a ton of records one way or the other over the network. Let me put it this...
March 9, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you aren't getting the values you expect, then something is wrong. Either your table / column is case sensitive despite the fact that your DB is case insensitive or...
March 9, 2009 at 10:20 am
When I talk about processing resources, I'm not talking about field by field. I'm talking about having to take the timestamp of your DW to the timestamp of either your...
March 9, 2009 at 8:47 am
Bob Hovious (3/9/2009)
I have colleagues who use GROUP BY clauses without aggregation in place of a SELECT DISTINCT. The results appear to be the same. I've always used a DISTINCT...
March 9, 2009 at 8:25 am
sotn (3/9/2009)
March 9, 2009 at 8:22 am
I'd agree with the temp mapping table approach because a CASE statement can inadvertantly overwrite an "earlier" conversion if you're not careful. Also, you can use the IN for the...
March 9, 2009 at 8:12 am
One thing not previously mentioned, which happens in our environment all the time. If you have procs constantly added to the database which the client needs to use and this...
March 9, 2009 at 8:07 am
Viewing 15 posts - 8,431 through 8,445 (of 9,720 total)