Viewing 15 posts - 42,121 through 42,135 (of 59,067 total)
Neha,
That's a whole lot different than what I thought you were asking. It's also simpler to resolve... a simple inner join between the two tables should do the trick....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:47 am
crookj (8/27/2009)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/884202Jeff - See if this link helps.
Good luck!
Joe
Thanks, Joe... It's not the same problem that I'm having but these things are sometimes related. so I'll check it out. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:42 am
IceDread (8/30/2009)
Jeff Moden (8/30/2009)
IceDread (8/30/2009)
It is as said an interesting idea but I dont see the value of it because sql server is still very lacking.
Can you give some specific...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:35 am
Lynn Pettis (8/31/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:31 am
Pakki (8/30/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:27 am
Bob Hovious (8/31/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:26 am
arup_kc (8/24/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ah... sorry. My mistake, Elliott. Thank you for the feedback. 🙂
And, to your good point and if I remember correctly, all of the calculated columns constructed from the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 31, 2009 at 10:15 am
BWAA-HAAA!!! I had to laugh, Jim. I've violated #1 and #2 in the past which is the only reason why I caught it. 😉 Well done...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 11:39 pm
SQL Server 2008 (I believe...)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 11:34 pm
It's actually pretty easy to do... but in T-SQL and you need something to guarantee the order. If you have something to guarantee the order, I can show you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Heh... glad to see you back in sorts, Bob... although I was getting used to calling you "the Dot formally known as Bob". 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Jim McLeod (8/30/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm
setlan1983 ,
First, you owe me an explanation. You wrote that you want it done in a single query... would you mind telling me why? There's a reason I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 10:33 pm
There's just one problem in all of that... try the following code and see the potential error... especially in SQL Server 2000.
SELECT DISTINCT Number
FROM master..spt_values WHERE Number >= 0...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 42,121 through 42,135 (of 59,067 total)