Viewing 15 posts - 41,041 through 41,055 (of 59,069 total)
Paul White (11/22/2009)
C# Screw (11/22/2009)
:satisfied:!!!!Wait a minute - I thought I was onto something!!!!!!:satisfied:
:ermm: That works, yes, but you know it'll suck performance-wise, right? Look at the RBAR!!!
I'm trying...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 6:34 pm
WHERE CHARINDEX(RemovePattern, @MyString) != -1
Also, can you tell me when CHARINDEX will ever = -1? Wouldn't it be more effective to just have ...
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm
C# Screw (11/22/2009)
:satisfied:!!!!Wait a minute - I thought I was onto something!!!!!!:satisfied:This works nicely without the Nested replace:-):-):
Very cool revelation but I'd suggest using the same spacing scheme that Michael...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Paul White (11/22/2009)
Jeff & Michael,:w00t: I now understand why Jeff's method broke! :w00t:
Consider these very simple statements:
Heh... Yep... that's what I got out of it, too, but I didn't say...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm
RRB-392302 (3/26/2009)
Thanks for this. A slight tweek and it met my needs perfectly.
Heh... two way street here... why did you need to make a tweek and please post the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I have to agree with what was said.... by whose definition is it that 7.0449 should be rounded to 7.05? Are you intenionally trying to give CPA's a heart...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Dave Ballantyne (11/22/2009)
Here's another method (requires 2005+)
Heh... I always have to laugh at articles like that... they talk about performance and "better" ways to do things but they all end...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 3:51 pm
tho.pfaff (11/21/2009)
i want to know a bit more about cursors and the technical way they are realized. my understanding is, that cursors are pointers on a result-set within the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm
abstract:
cursors (used in for loops):
- sql-query to get the result-set is executed one time, to make a result set (in the initialsation-part of procedure)
- one small result-set
- fastest way for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Wow! Thanks for the feedback, Saurabh!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 10:10 am
Lynn Pettis (11/21/2009)
Jeff Moden (11/21/2009)
Understanding is the key... thanks, Saurabh. :blush:
Actually, Jeff, in a query such as this:
select getdate(), getdate();
the getdate() function is actually called twice. Found this...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
Michael Meierruth (11/21/2009)
When you deal with two different but similar problems, things tend to get confusing.
Problem 1: SQL Server 2000 and the replace function's reliability
Problem 2: SQL Server 2005 and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 21, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Michael Meierruth (11/21/2009)
By the way, once you have attached the collate qualifier to OriginalString the others are not necessary.
In any case, in my opinion this is a bug in SQL...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 21, 2009 at 11:37 am
Understanding is the key... thanks, Saurabh. :blush:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 21, 2009 at 11:33 am
Saurabh Dwivedy (11/21/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 21, 2009 at 10:53 am
Viewing 15 posts - 41,041 through 41,055 (of 59,069 total)