Viewing 15 posts - 41,791 through 41,805 (of 59,102 total)
roy.neelanjana (9/27/2009)
I have a requirement in sql server 2005 reporting services where I need multiple selection. But my database is in Sqlserver 2000.
If the input is as follows:
declare...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Grant Fritchey (9/25/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I've got to ask... what do you do next week since this original table posted gives no clue as to date? I don't know if you can change from...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I agree with you, but you didn't tell them how to export to a CSV. Keep in mind that T-SQL is part of the stack and the user doesn't...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm
jwhisman (9/27/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm
winterminute (9/27/2009)
Sounds like I need to create a new table with the right schema and move all the existing data into it as...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 7:36 pm
173 stored procedures? That just doesn't seem right somehow and it smacks of RBAR. How many rows do each of these stored procedures handle... one?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 8:32 am
Dan English-729975 (9/26/2009)
...and then export to CSV.
I believe that's the crux of the original question... how would you do that without SSIS or SSRS, Dan?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 8:28 am
What I'm concerned about is the apparent lack of detail in the requirements they gave you. I just can't imagine that they don't care about the sort order of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 8:01 am
I wasn't the one that set it up (our OPs guys set it up) so I don't know many of the details. The servers and the SAN were all...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 7:39 am
You can certainly change the PK to an identity column and, if you can guarantee that duplicates across what is currently the PK will be keep out by process, then...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 27, 2009 at 7:23 am
We never experienced such a thing... not even when the source or target when down for one reason or another. Maybe we just got lucky but it ran with...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 26, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Bob Hovious 24601 (9/26/2009)
Hope you didn't mind my taking pity on the OP who didn't have a clue about how to do a set-based...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The thing I don't like about any form of SQL Server replication (it's been fixed in 2k8) is when you need to alter a table which it won't let you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sorry, I'd forgotten to populate the Note_ID column in the Temp Table... I've added it to the code above.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 41,791 through 41,805 (of 59,102 total)