Viewing 15 posts - 38,851 through 38,865 (of 59,098 total)
COldCoffee (4/19/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 9:02 am
BTW... the real reason why I'm asking the above question is that it may explain why so many people have questions like "I deleted a table and only have a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 8:55 am
I'll guess I'll have to test the performance of having a separate app handle the file first... it may be the missing link that BCP and BULK INSERT don't have....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 8:27 am
Tom.Thomson (4/19/2010)
Jeff Moden (4/18/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 8:18 am
Nabha (4/18/2010)
Yes, sorry, completely off the track. I dint know about timestamp clearly. And it looks like its down to 'seconds' that you are suggesting. Thanks Jeff.
No problem. I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 12:40 am
Kris-155042 (4/18/2010)
Sorry to be such a pain but...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 12:30 am
Or, you can just do it in T-SQL and not have to worry about it much. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 12:10 am
Absolutely my pleasure. Thanks for the feedback.
You still might want to read the articles that Lutz pointed out, though. I know the guy that wrote them and he...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2010 at 12:07 am
My recommendation would be to rewrite the proc_student stored proc to use set based code instead of RBAR. However, I do understand that that is sometimes just not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Me to... does anyone have a recommendation on this?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Heh... you know what you get from me when you post tables, readily consumable data, and a nice list of what the results should be?........ A tested, coded answer! ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Nabha (4/15/2010)
I am guessing,
wo.COMPLETEDTIME >= Convert(bigint, convert(timestamp, getdate()))
and ofcourse
wo.COMPLETEDTIME < Convert(bigint, convert(timestamp, getdate() + 1))
Ummmm... I know it's just a guess, Nabha, but the TIMESTAMP data type has absolutely...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm
lmu92 (4/16/2010)
So, instead of having an integer value it woul be a lot better and easier...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 10:12 pm
I still can't believe that someone needs a 70 column primary key. Without actually understanding the table at hand, I believe that some normalization would be in order. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 10:00 pm
SQL_NuB (4/14/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 38,851 through 38,865 (of 59,098 total)