Kenneth Fisher-475792 (10/3/2011)

---

drew.allen (9/30/2011)

---

This is a report and you should be using a reporting tool to generate it. ...

You do realize that this is exactly...

This is a report and you should be using a reporting tool to generate it. T-SQL is not...

R.P.Rozema (9/30/2011)

---

Can't you generate the xml, then read it to find the orders in there for the audit? If it's an audit you want to be sure the xml generation...

If you use FOR XML PATH('') to create your SQL command string, it will create a single string rather than one per index, so you don't even need the loop....

If I were doing this, I would probably just store the XML document in your audit table. That way you have a record of EXACTLY what was sent to...

The problem with a UNION (ALL) is that you will have to scan the table twice. Here is an approach that only scans the table once.

SELECT [ID]

...

Variables can be set using either a SET statement or a SELECT statement. You need to use the SELECT statement version

declare @xml XML='';

declare @ChildPrtID nvarchar(100) = 'T12345';

;with XMLNAMESPACES ('http://swp.converteam.com'...

It's the same as any other correlated subquery. The processor first checks for the field in the scope of the subquery. If it can't find the field there,...

It's because you're doing a string comparison. For example, since the character '4' comes after the character '2', any string that begins with a '4' is greater than any...

Since you didn't include your code...

Kingston Dhasian (9/28/2011)

---

This should work for you then..

DECLARE @from_date DATETIME

SET @from_date = '11-Sep-2011'

SELECT CASE

WHEN DATEADD( MONTH, DATEDIFF(...

Actually the problem lies with this piece of code:

DATEADD(wk, DATEDIFF(wk, 0, GetDate()), 0)

Similar code works...

I think that this will give you want you need without depending on having a complete history of the transactions.

;

WITH Items AS (

SELECT ItemID

, EndDate

, Row_Number() OVER( PARTITION BY ItemID...

The only thing that I would suggest is that since AccumID is already character data, it doesn't make sense to (implicitly) convert it to an integer and then (explicitly) convert...