Viewing 15 posts - 38,026 through 38,040 (of 59,098 total)
Richard Gardner-291039 (6/11/2010)
The American market ... want to get gold all the time.
BWAA-HAAA!!!! Why would anyone "shoot for the bronze"? Go for the gold and settle for the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 11, 2010 at 6:26 am
paul_ramster (6/10/2010)
I expect the performance would be poor where there are many (millions of) consecutive rows to flatten, but the data I need to process is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 11, 2010 at 5:55 am
bteraberry (6/10/2010)
scott.pletcher (6/10/2010)
Did anyone even look at the code I posted that, to me, seems to get the answers desired??
Yes it works with the sample data provided, but without specific...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 9:37 pm
scott.pletcher (6/10/2010)
It was fairly clear when he said month 11 was "before" month 1 that some other month was controlling the sequence.
For convenience, I used MONTH(GETDATE()), since it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Grant Fritchey (6/10/2010)
GilaMonster (6/10/2010)
Dan.Humphries (6/10/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 8:49 pm
scott.pletcher (6/10/2010)
You might want to look into the use of [0-9] and [^0-9] just to simplify the code a bit.
Except I've had some odd results sometimes from that :unsure:. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Phil Factor (6/10/2010)
Hi Phil... have you got a link for the method you mention above?
I use something similar myself. It is simple stuff. If you're interested I'll tidy it up...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Phil Factor (6/10/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (6/10/2010)
Dan, I agree with you on one part....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm
scott.pletcher (6/10/2010)
Did anyone even look at the code I posted that, to me, seems to get the answers desired??
Does it work if the data is out "out of order" from...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
paul_ramster (6/10/2010)
However, while that has one big advantage (in that it works), it has a problem for me (not SQL2000 compatible). Although that shouldn't matter on this...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 7:33 am
Bhuvnesh (6/9/2010)
Which would be the better option ?
1. USE ALTER TABLE ....ALTER COLUMN approach
2. Create new table and then push the exisitng table's data into it.
and does...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 7:30 am
mike 57299 (6/9/2010)
Jeff,What would you recommend to make sure I don't get duplicate primary keys? Should I do it as a standard proc?
Mike
I agree with Gail. Even...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 7:18 am
James Stover (6/10/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2010 at 7:05 am
It's not going to happen using a function because a function isn't allowed to update or insert into "real" tables... period.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 9, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 38,026 through 38,040 (of 59,098 total)