Viewing 15 posts - 42,556 through 42,570 (of 59,067 total)
It's not quite that bad... with ANSI PADDING ON, VARCHAR can have trailing spaces if they've been assigned. It won't automatically pad spaces to the total width of the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 3, 2009 at 2:59 am
jqd2001 (8/2/2009)
I do read all your guys comments and it is now hard to quote now:
(1) I am dealing with Crystal report in a closed sysetm so cannot have...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 3, 2009 at 1:36 am
I absolutely, positively would NOT write a script for it. Check Books Online for BCP.
And, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that there's a "text server" or something...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Yep... I agree with that.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Heh... and I thought XML was supposed to make stuff easy. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I don't believe that you'd put that in the HAVING... why not just put it in the WHERE clause?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I haven't tried it, but check out the following...
http://www.softempire.com/sql-server-repair.html
... without a backup, it's gonna cost you one way or the other.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 9:05 pm
I haven't actually done a measurement but I would say that a good reason NOT to do it would be performance just like doing a SELECT * causes performance problems...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm
From what I can see, there's no correlation between the UPDATE and the SELECT. How do the columns in the SELECT list relate to the table being updated?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Your are correct... cursors are definitely not needed here. Sounds like you did a pretty good job avoiding them and your method seems good. With that in mind,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Lynn Pettis (8/2/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 8:36 pm
As a sidebar... you might be a "novice_coder" in T-SQL but, from what I can see in this thread, you are not a "novice developer". Well done.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I also say that if you've broken it down to 10 procedures that there's nothing wrong with that... unless the procedures only handle one row at a time and then...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm
jqd2001 (8/2/2009)
Jeff (and I) was talking about Cursors and loops, not TVF's. ...there is no reason to believe that your only choices are cursor-based code or 1500-line procedures.
Barry,
For big...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm
jqd2001 (7/23/2009)
there should be no need for "procedural feature" nor a cursor to loop through rules no matter how complicated
Jeff,
In that sense, we will end up with...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 42,556 through 42,570 (of 59,067 total)