Viewing 15 posts - 41,836 through 41,850 (of 59,102 total)
Steve Jones - Editor (9/23/2009)
Don't know. That sounds like employment for life! Might be THE place to work.
BWAA-HAAA!!! Hadn't thought about it THAT way! You could be right!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 23, 2009 at 11:41 am
Thanks Bradley and JJ. Just in case you're interested, "Part 2" can be found at the following URL:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
It covers how to make/automate dynamic crosstabs for reporting purposes.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 23, 2009 at 9:25 am
marco-870908 (9/22/2009)
Anyway it is my firm belief that such protections should be validated once where user-input comes into the system
Roger that! One of my favorite sayings is that "If...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Lots'o good code coming out of this discussion... Haven't tested that last one for speed on the same machine that I've been testing on, but it'll gen more numbers than...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Heh... it was during my testing. I'll check this on the same machine tomorrow to keep the apples'n'oranges thing from happening.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 9:00 pm
First... sorry... I meant "Elliot"... not "Lowell". I've been looking at a lot of his posts.
I agree with you if there's no "User" table other than the WebUser table.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Lynn Pettis (9/22/2009)
declare @Date1 datetime,
@Date2 datetime;
set @Date1 = '2009-09-22 12:20:21.333';
set @Date2 = '2009-09-22 12:20:21.000';
select
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Lowell's idea is good in that it leads to a more normalized database... which I absolutely agree with. To wit, the UserName column should be removed from the WebUser...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm
If it's only one table, you could create a VIEW. If it's a whole bunch of tables for something like a reporting server and you have a SAN, you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 6:56 pm
arun.sas (9/22/2009)
Use the UNION to get correct result.
Ummmm... maybe not... UNION will get rid of any duplicates and the duplicates may be important.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm
SSSolice (9/22/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm
adam spencer (9/22/2009)
BOL wont help me either.
I looked it up in SQL Server 2005 Books Online... all of the parameters are explained as well as what the what is contained...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Bill-89778 (9/22/2009)
This is a link to an article that desribes a method for custom grouping and subtotaling.http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/reporting-services/reporting-at-the-top/
It may be flexible enough for your requirements...
Bill
Ummm... can someone tell me what's...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Steve, you and Nelson are absolutely spot on. I'll add one more important reason to network and it's the diametric opposite to what most people think... it helps you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 5:47 pm
David Kranes (9/22/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 41,836 through 41,850 (of 59,102 total)