Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 264 total)

  • RE: That case filter

    Ninja's_RGR'us (7/22/2011)

    That debate however has no end in sight as far as I can imagine, untill everybody takes 100% responsibility for their own life. Now that could start another...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 22, 2011 at 5:15 am

    #1356946

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    david.moule (7/21/2011)

    Yaaay.... got one right at last !

    😀

    GO YOU!!

    well done bud 🙂

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 21, 2011 at 9:18 am

    #1356504

  • RE: That case filter

    bopeavy (7/20/2011)

    I agree the question was misleading!! I ran it 20 times and always returned 5 rows! If the question was in reference to the UNION ALL it should have...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 20, 2011 at 6:40 am

    #1355535

  • RE: That case filter

    jcunningham (7/20/2011)

    I had a developer telling me that his Where column like 'A%' was not returning all of the expected results. Took me forever to realize he was running...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 20, 2011 at 6:32 am

    #1355528

  • RE: potentially stupid question

    cheers bud

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 20, 2011 at 6:23 am

    #1355519

  • RE: That case filter

    Toreador (7/20/2011)

    BenWard (7/20/2011)

    don't forget, if this question - or it's answer - was actually wrong it wouldn't have been published.

    Sadly that's not the case. There have been many recent questions...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 20, 2011 at 3:17 am

    #1355436

  • RE: That case filter

    Well, I think this was a useful reminder to us to actually look at the code. Yeah you might have missed a point and there's an 'incorrect' answer against your...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 20, 2011 at 2:59 am

    #1355429

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    rmechaber (7/11/2011)

    Can someone explain to me why you might expect the SUM(CASE) construct wouldn't work? I use this all the time and thought it was pretty straightforward T-SQL.

    lol although...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 11, 2011 at 7:46 am

    #1351075

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    I'd prefer 2 pints...

    ...to the pub!

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 11, 2011 at 6:28 am

    #1351047

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    nice to see people properly dry running it! when I was at college 5/6 years ago the teachers were allways banging on about dry running code and none of the...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 11, 2011 at 3:32 am

    #1350966

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    I dont have SQL 2008 here so couldn't test to be 100% sure before posting.

    should work exactly the same, but I'm not one to release untested code 😉

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 11, 2011 at 2:29 am

    #1350927

  • RE: In-CASE you need to SUM...

    thanks 🙂

    My team leader got it wrong.. 😀

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 11, 2011 at 1:43 am

    #1350913

  • RE: parallel execution of a stored proc?

    Cheers guys.

    I will have a play with service broker - I think it would be a useful skill to have anyway. I though about scheduling jobs, but I dont want...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 6, 2011 at 2:04 am

    #1348788

  • RE: parallel execution of a stored proc?

    Cheers Guys.

    I shall look into service broker.

    Lut - Good advice ta, but I already have run this sproc in paralel - i just kick off 13 queries in management studio...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    July 4, 2011 at 2:07 am

    #1347659

  • RE: Multiple Failures

    Believe it or not theres a verse in the bible that mentions this... (yes the bible is applicable to databases)

    ecclesiastes 9:11 states; "time and unforseen occurence befall us all"

    dont think...

    Ben

    ^ Thats me!

    ----------------------------------------
    01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
    ----------------------------------------

    June 17, 2011 at 5:37 am

    #1340331

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 264 total)