Hi David ,

Pretty poorly. Your method also performs poorly in relation to a traditional sub-select.

This may or may not be platform agnostic, although an important point its not a concern...

Jack Corbett (12/8/2010)

---

Hey guys, I don't see any threadizens on the list of submissions to SQLRally yet! What's taking y'all so long. There isn't any of you that...

You will...

Not without a cursor / looping solution

The closest equivalent would be create a temptable with an identity column.

Naturally , that will not support the over clause though

you will need to insert the required userId's into a table and then left join from that back to your #cases table

Have you considered a calendar table ?

http://sqlserver2000.databases.aspfaq.com/why-should-i-consider-using-an-auxiliary-calendar-table.html

Please see this link

http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_datetime.asp

SwePeso (12/6/2010)

---

It seems the dual TOP/ORDER BY was the most efficient approach by the time.

I tested the new Denali OFFSET/FETCH and I got the exact same number of reads for...

swoveland21 (12/6/2010)

Account table has 121,000 records and call has 651,000 records. Due to account type clause there are only 8,000 acount and 98,000 call records affected. I wonder...

@alex , Thanks glad you liked it.

The same thought had occurred to me but there complication would be that it would not entirely reproducible due to random data. ...

@Mihai , Yes this is all 2005 (or greater)

@RockvilleAustin

That code was qualified with "In an ideal world we would be able to execute ..... However we cannot,...

Kay ,

You are absolutely correct , any solution that relies upon a tally table has to have at least the required number of rows in the said tally table.

If you...

Which links ?

The full article is here http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/71571/

Sorry , lost track of this one,

There does seem room for improvement here, Im not 100% clear on your requirements though.

Can you try restating and clarifying ?