Viewing 15 posts - 32,806 through 32,820 (of 59,099 total)
3 recommendations... just my practice...
1. Never use % for growth. It's too small when the DB is small and too big when it gets large. Always use a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 19, 2011 at 12:58 am
Gosh... this is a pretty easy task to do in a T-SQL stored procedure. Can one be used here?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 19, 2011 at 12:52 am
Yep... I understand and appreciate that. You just asked about 2000 awfully late in the game.
Why not just use the tally Table splitter against a Temp Table that has...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 19, 2011 at 12:50 am
Heh... it would be nice if you'd let us know first when you need 2000 code in a 2005 forum. ๐
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 19, 2011 at 12:21 am
abhishek_dwivedi03 (8/18/2011)
Wrong LinkBro, This is not what i am looking for .
I want to reduce the initial file size to avoid mis-happenings in Future ๐
In SQL Server 2008, just...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 19, 2011 at 12:17 am
nellisjp (8/18/2011)
but why you'd need something like this is beyond me
I've had to do such a thing many times even if I don't necessarily agree with it. It's a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 11:29 pm
I have to admit that I'm confused. How are you reading from a CSV file with that code? Or is that a part of the problem you're having?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 11:22 pm
It may not do everything you're trying to do but it will give you a hint on how to lose that awful cursor. ๐ Please see the following post...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost730149.aspx
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I agree with Gus. Synonyms are the only way to go for something like this. With just a bit of dynamic SQL, you can "auto-magically" create them in...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Just for grins, drop the view, recreate it as it is, and try again. It frequently doesn't do a bloody thing but it can save a huge amount of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Heh... I didn't scroll down before I replied. Maybe there won't be so many people raising hell with me after all. ๐
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Jayanth_Kurup (8/16/2011)
for example for a table like customer , the emailid would be a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:43 pm
I wonder if the new splitter from the "Tally OH!" article would have helped here. I've not done any heavy testing with it against VARCHAR(MAX) but some folks have...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Gosh... if it's taking 4 minutes per row to delete because of foreign key updates, there's bound to be some blocking or even deadlocking if people try to access any...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I occasionally drop in on other forums but SQLServerCentral.com is my "home". I'd also love to hear about your transition from SQL Server 2000 to 2008 as I'm sure...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 18, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 32,806 through 32,820 (of 59,099 total)