Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 182 total)
The queries with Jeff's data seems to be working OK in my environment, but I'm currently working in SQL 2000.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 17, 2008 at 7:57 am
Very nice solution, you guys...that will go in my toolbox!
I, too, would like to hear from the OP to see how well it worked with the existing data.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 17, 2008 at 6:26 am
One other thing I'm thinking of, you can always add a new column to the table that contains only the numeric portion of the part number. You will have...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm
OK, I see what you are trying to do now...(that helps, right?)
I have some ideas using string functions...I'll cobble some things together as I have time to see what I...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm
biscuit (3/14/2008)
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Using G's data...
select *
from rangeproof
where id like '[1][0-9][0-9][-]%'
...this query pulled back all the ids that were of the format '1##-'
If you want to check for a character in a position...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I'm working on a solution using 'like' in the where...I don't use that much so it is trial and error. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.
where partnumber like...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 12:51 pm
biscuit (3/14/2008)
An example is:123-1204a
I'm curious, for the part number example you give above, what range would you input to check for this number, theoretically speaking? (I'm asking to understand...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm
The timing of this article was perfect for me.
I'm in the process of evaluating some stored procedures that are poor performers (which is causing a host of other problems) and...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 14, 2008 at 5:49 am
Just curious, do any of these processes also 'fix' all the stored procedures that query these tables, or do you have to do that some other way?
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 13, 2008 at 10:54 am
...and read this forum.
There are a lot of things in SQL that APPEAR to do the same thing (same end result in regards to the data), but each has a...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 12, 2008 at 5:37 am
Jeff, I think the OP is trying to convert to 'yyyymmdd' format.
I do like your solution as it is MUCH more robust.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 10, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Very cool...glad I was able to help.
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm
dan (3/10/2008)
Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Procedure CLookup, Line 19
The reference in your error to line 19, yet there isn't that many lines of code in your SQL update....
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I mocked up your data an ran your query and it worked OK for me (but it was a small dataset).
Beware if you have any dates like '03/2/2008' or '03/02/08'...
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it!;)
March 10, 2008 at 11:57 am
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 182 total)