When I do a sp_who2 it shows the proc as blocking, not sure which statement in the proc is doing it. I guess I can split it into two and...

Ok then ganeshmuthuvelu's advice will do. You can preface it with a statement that checks if the table exists and if not create it before you do you select into....

Try using DTS. There is a copy SQL objects tool that will do what you want and has all the options for you to turn on and off.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: Turn...

Is there anything in the smtp logs to give you a clue?

*I had a devil of a time deugging a problem like this and it turned out that you couldn't...

I really like the envelope method.

Assuming that the envelop is not kept under lock and key. If I want to make an unauthorized change to the production db...

OMFG. Wow am I ever glad I am located and do business in Canada. SOX sounds like a nightmare!

I agree with the earlier poster, with so much division of duties...

"My resultset is still off a bit....still working on it. I can't wait til we hire a programmer and I can go back to Photoshop!"

LOL Your doing great!

If the...

Whoops, sorry you need to provide the replacement value for isnull()

Not sure if this is very efficient but you could use a derived statement:

select isnull(t.totPaid,0), isnull(t.totCancel,0), isnull(t.totOpen,0), isnull(t.totBillAmount,0)

From (select...

CASE WHEN...

I am not sure if the statment is going to do want you want, but nonetheless I think the two possible values in the case need to match.

eg.

case when snee...

Yup its case dependent. For my current project there are only 5 params but there is not much load. (small tables few users). In another project of mine there...

Good advice. I have just started to use profiler. I have much to learn there. I don't go out of my way to avoid joins, I normalize to a...

Yes that's what I meant as well.

Using the covering index in both queries turned out at 60%/40%.

Using the covering for the derived table method but targeted indexes for...

Yes I did. The result using that index was 60/40 in favor of the derived table method.

When I wrote the UNION so that each select uses the appropriate index for...

Hmm something weird. I just ran it again but in I fixed my union statement so that each select used the correct index. eg. where fname used the fname...

I ran both queries again first with one index (lname) then with both lname,fname. When I run them both in the same QA window it shows a percent cost...