Koen Verbeeck (5/13/2013)

---

Yes, because I use INTO combined with a GROUP BY daily to create new...

+1 Unfortunately, I didn't pick up on that until it was too late.

+1 for sure. I wasn't sure I was going to get it right without any caffeine intake to...

Thanks for the question. Much easier for my brain to handle in lieu of yesterday's this early in the morning. Hugo, thanks for taking the time to provide even more...

Thanks for the question. Too bad it stumped me this morning...completely overlooked the batch part of it.

Thanks for the easy one to end the week!

+1

mtassin (4/26/2013)

---

Hugo Kornelis (4/26/2013)

---

I first focused on the reference to a unique constraint rather than the primary key, thinking that was the issue of the question. I almost got it...

Great question and very well written. I kind of figured the IDENTITY_INSERT was more for ease of confusion reasons than anything rather than assuming it was off.

Thanks for the great question.

+1

Hugo Kornelis (4/16/2013)

---

Good question, mediocre explanation - no errors, but complicating things more than needed.

There are three variations of COUNT:

* COUNT(*) - returns the number of rows, regardless of content.

*...

Is there a reason why you have it set up as multiple jobs instead of just one job with multiple steps? If there is, I'm mot saying it's the best...

The target table cannot be remote. Here's a link to a previous posting that might be of some use to you.

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic834948-391-1.aspx

Good question. You almost got me because of the lack of caffeine in my system, but at the last moment I noticed the other identity field.