Please don't cross post. It fragments replies, wastes people's time and upsets the regulars

We read all forums

Continue thread here

2005 SP2 and higher.

If you are using SQL 2005, rather use the...

Just note that this method will almost certainly prevent index seeks from been used to find affected records. It'll work, but it ain't likely to work fast.

It won't be noticeable...

Dunno. I'm going to do a bit of testing tomorrow, see if I can dig up any differences in how the queries run.

Back on SQL 2000 I had a job that would run a checksum or checksum aggregate over some columns of the system tables to look for changes. Wasn't pretty, but...

It has to roll back. It's a property of transactions that they complete totally or not at all. since this one's been cancelled, it must undo all that it's done....

Ah. I took it to be something else (website or other app where the DB defines and controls the Gui)

Or in a very high volume OLTP, where lots and lots of small queries are run ver frequently.

Is just conjecture until tested though.

If it is the case, then is...

Other than protecting against future changes, I can't think of a good reason.

Possibly SELECT * requires an extra lookup to the system tables to get the column names. Kinda like...

What?

SELECT name from sys.procedures where modify_date > @MyDate

In SQL 2005 you can look at the modify_date in sys.tables

In SQL 2000 I don't think there's any way of checking, unless you've got a trace running.

About 3 hours, if I recall, and the number of questions varies. You get a timer at the top of the screen.

Work carefully and steadily. If you know the...

A rollback statement will rollback all open transactions on that connection. There's no need to keep track of transaction names and, in fact, naming transactions in SQL is more for...

SQL 2000 questions are best posted in the SQL 2000 forums.

Do you mean last change of structure or last change of data?