Viewing 15 posts - 34,861 through 34,875 (of 59,099 total)
BenWard (2/28/2011)
having done some testing using insert instead of union is VASTLY quicker and requires less re-write of our existing programs so we'll probably end up...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Gosh... if it's only running 100 times in 5 minutes, try adding OPTION(RECOMPILE) to the offending statement and you'll likely be done with the problem.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 7:14 pm
magasvs (2/28/2011)
Something else important that you should request - installation media for all versions of SQL Server installed in company.
And proof of licensing.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Craig Farrell (2/28/2011)
.... AAAAaaaaand I'm in trouble again....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm
gregory.anderson (2/28/2011)
Jeff Moden (2/21/2011)
gregory.anderson (2/18/2011)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Craig Farrell (2/28/2011)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 5:37 pm
The hierarchical examples of Recursive CTE's in BOL aren't that bad and they aren't actually full blown RBAR because they process full levels at a time instead of just one...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Eric M Russell (2/28/2011)
Jeff Moden (2/25/2011) . . .
You're locked in a cell with a steel floor. At the center of the room is a pipe with massively thick...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 7:46 am
SQLkiwi (2/27/2011)
Jeff Moden (2/27/2011)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 7:36 am
Thanks, Paul.
I agree... in particular, I saw that 70% sort on the second use of the Tally Table and believe it would go away if we simply wrote the results...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:55 am
Craig Farrell (2/27/2011)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:48 am
I was going to post that the result table and the related methods for this code article are nearly identical to what full-text-search (FTS) does but I see that folks...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:34 am
AndrewJacksonZA (2/28/2011)
HiPlease include a link to where Jeff Moden posted his function.
This search turned up this result.
Is that where you got the function from?
Thanks
Andrew
That's likely it. I've only posted...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 6:19 am
Jeff Moden (2/28/2011)
SQLkiwi (2/28/2011)
A couple of tweaks to Jeff's code, mostly for correctnessI was in a bit of a hurry... what tweaks did you make?
Never mind. I see. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 5:54 am
SQLkiwi (2/28/2011)
A couple of tweaks to Jeff's code, mostly for correctness
I was in a bit of a hurry... what tweaks did you make?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 28, 2011 at 5:51 am
Viewing 15 posts - 34,861 through 34,875 (of 59,099 total)