A simple way? None comes to mind.

However, the solution would center around the original code I posted. Off the top of my head...

You could always unsubscribe, noel. 😛

I heard you were an MVP. What I meant to say was that I took more pride in that compliment...

OMG NOOOOOOOooooooooo :w00t:

Steve, a suggestion for enhancements: Could each block have a copy button above it to make it easier to cut and paste...

Steve posted his times for 11000 rows as follows

SQL Server Execution Times:

CPU time = 4992 ms, elapsed time = 5213 ms.

When I tested it on my...

Thanks Jeff... I take more pride in a compliment like that from you than I would from an MVP.... although unfortunately it doesn't look as good on a resume. ...

I also found the function to be slow in testing. I had an alternate way of generating the number that was much quicker, but for performance, the best...

I just tested the function from that article ... it is SLOW!!!!

9999 rows converted using that function takes almost 20 seconds!!!

set statistics time on;

-- test using join to existing table

select...

I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you. We haven't implemented full-text search in production. Someone suggested using it to replace some existing search functionality...

Since you will be writing the parsing to build the strings, doing that shouldn't be a problem.

How volatile is the data in the name...

No sweat. I didn't see the requirement in the first post either. You owe me a millisecond 😉

Once the table is built it appears to be more efficient to just look a number up. Running the test below with 9999 different numbers, the...

I've seen an article in here recently where someone had implemented a similar scheme. Essentially, at the time the name field was inserted, they parsed out all...

First, you should be warned that string manipulations like this should be done by the application, not in SQL. The reasons for this are to protect the...

DOH!! :w00t:

That's what I get for having gotten away from using EXEC.