Viewing 15 posts - 38,251 through 38,265 (of 59,072 total)
Just to add my two cents... I loved this article. It's well written, the code is formatted for easy readability. Topics were exposed in the correct order. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm
shaytoder (5/20/2010)
my mistake,for some reason i thought this approach will use seeks and not scans,
but now i tried it again, and i see scans.
sorry...:blush:
That's been the common problem throughout this...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Heh... just had to post back before I went to work. There's a trick that uses the difference between two different partitions used while creating ROW_NUMBER that might take...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
That's exactly what I had in mind. I'll try to get to this after work tonight.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 8:15 am
sanketahir1985 (5/21/2010)
but developers have taken care of that thing ,they have used some threading concept in which it checks for thread if it is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 8:03 am
Thanks for the test data... I'll take a whack at it after I get home from work tonight.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 7:49 am
Heh... does your stored procedure take less than 5 seconds to run? If it does, then yes, either Leo's pass-through view or my synyonm swap should do the trick...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 12:15 am
... and, let's say you wanted COL7 to be a NOT NULL INTEGER column...
SELECT COL1, COL2, COL2 , COL4, COL5, COL6, ISNULL(CAST(0 AS INT),0) AS COL7
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 21, 2010 at 12:06 am
Lowell (5/20/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 11:46 pm
BSavoie (5/20/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Leo is spot on. Truncating a permanent table that's "in service" will always cause some sort of a problem in the future.
In SQL Server 2005 and up,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Not to worry... and thanks for the feedback. 🙂
If you want to learn more about the dynamic SQL Cross Tab I used, please see the following articles. Of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Details are in the comments folks. Heh... ya wanted to get rid of "repeating code", right?
--===== Conditionally drop the test table. It makes reruns easier
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm
elutin (5/20/2010)
I would create aggregate CLR function for this in C#.
Cool... lets see it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Suresh Kumar-284278 (5/20/2010)
I am currently in a dilemma of choosing my career path. I have been doing DB Developer role (SP writing, Query Tuning etc) for the past 5...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 38,251 through 38,265 (of 59,072 total)