Viewing 15 posts - 40,771 through 40,785 (of 59,070 total)
Nuts (12/6/2009)
I want to display the records from table 1 of those patients where patient_id of table 1 matches with the patient_id of table 2
Based soley on the question, I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm
You said you need to do this for maintenance purposes... what are they and why do you think you must stop the SQL Server Services to accomplish them?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:09 pm
If you consider the way you'd do it in Ingres "elegant", then why not just do it that way? Write the 3 stored procedures.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Bad day, Barry?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:04 pm
David Portas (12/6/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Heh... look back folks... the OP has left the building. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:00 pm
zuma01 (12/6/2009)
I am trying to create an SSIS package for importing our mobile phone bill from a CSV file.
Why? Simple BULK INSERT will do much better especially for performance....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm
"Stab'n'Grab"...
Op has logged in precisely once.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Ok, Sam... I'm tickled I could help. With that thought in mind, I have to ask, do you understand what my code did and how it works compared to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I absolutely agree. It helps a lot if you can demo an "easily repeatable problem" as well. We all hate intermitent problems and the good folks at MS...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Paul White (12/6/2009)
Yes one should be careful. I wouldn't advocate using the method for billions of rows 😉
I had much smaller maximum values for 'Quantity' in mind -...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 7:08 pm
My recommendation would be to post the code and some sample data according to the first link in my signature below. Someone may be able to help you avoid...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 9:47 am
Wow! I agree... just imagine if only 5 people open the same screen at once... the server will have to transmit a half million rows which will totally clog...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 9:39 am
I'm just having a hard time with your description... what you really mean is that if the ID is duplicated, it's considered to be a dupe and you don't care...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 9:12 am
Not a problem, Sam... that's what we're here for.
The graphic for SQL Server shows two result sets... one for 542 rows and one for one row. Unless you click...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 6, 2009 at 8:55 am
Viewing 15 posts - 40,771 through 40,785 (of 59,070 total)