Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 938 total)
I didn't see the article, but for various reasons I think there will always be a need for technical people 'on shore'. Just as an example, many businesses can't wait until it's...
August 29, 2006 at 7:50 am
"Actually comparisons of a NULL (or a non-NULL value) to a NULL results in UNKNOWN. Your point is taken though: The WHERE clause only returns results for rows...
August 24, 2006 at 7:56 am
"ANY COMPARISON OF A NON-NULL TO A NULL IS NULL"
Actually comparisons of a NULL (or a non-NULL value) to a NULL results in UNKNOWN. Your point is taken though: ...
August 23, 2006 at 10:04 am
Hi Ed,
No problem. I also put the version in the DLL files so you can right click and look at the properties for the DLL's to check the version numbers.
Thanks
August 23, 2006 at 8:02 am
Here's your sample tables with indexes on them. Should eliminate the table scans in your query plan.
CREATE TABLE Students (
StID INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED,
StName...
August 23, 2006 at 7:39 am
Be careful with that:
SELECT @strReturn = COALESCE(@strReturn,'')+String+' '
FROM dbo.fnSetSplitSV('The Quick Brown Fox Jumped Over the Slow Lazy Dog',' ')
WHERE Row >= 8
AFAIK, you can't rely on the...
August 16, 2006 at 8:02 am
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the catch. I don't know why I didn't test it with data with an empty first element in the list! (Doh!) Here's your solution converted over to take...
August 14, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Celko definitely knows what he's doing and he writes good books. I think people just get rubbed the wrong way by some of his responses on the newsgroups... but that's...
August 14, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Thanks David. If you're on SQL 2005 it's a simple matter of converting the function to a CTE and adding a ROW_NUMBER() to it. I set it up that way...
August 14, 2006 at 7:32 am
"Where's Steve?"
Steve is "in the house". He was kind enough to let me rant on today's editorial page
As for you guys' comments, I...
July 26, 2006 at 9:50 am
Oh man! First the Fat Boys break up, then Microsoft Bob goes away... and now this!!! Arrrgghh!!!
July 23, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Sometimes you can improve performance even more by using a properly indexed temp table to hold the intermediate results of the two queries instead of one large query with several...
July 23, 2006 at 2:05 pm
That's why I said "99.99999%" instead of 100%, in recognition that 0.00001% of the time you might find it necessary to pound your nails into the board with that hacksaw.
July 22, 2006 at 2:09 pm
"All it is is a tool. Those who categorically refuse to even consider using it are hopeless!!! You can join the guy who thinks using temp tables is a mortal sin!"
If 99.99999% of...
July 21, 2006 at 6:02 pm
"So SQL Server has always had cursors because of its origins. But set based queries are orders of magnitude more efficient. I once re-wrote an entire order processing system originally...
July 21, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 938 total)