Viewing 15 posts - 43,156 through 43,170 (of 59,063 total)
[font="Arial Black"]I still want to know the business requirement behind all this, please.[/font]
Ok... here's a very simple answer especially if you have more than 3 columns that you need to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm
mandirkumar (6/29/2009)
Hi ALLI have a table and I need both horizontal and vertical sorting for the table
Example:-
What is the business requirement behind doing this? It...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 7:33 pm
SanjayAttray (6/29/2009)
in SQL server 2005 result is 1.234568E+09while in SQL 2000 result is 1.2345679E+9
Does it make any difference ?
Heh... only if you're answering a QOD and only if both answers...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:24 pm
peter (6/29/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I'm pretty happy that someone brought up the fact that when you're going to be doing something like genning numbers using systems tables or views, that the end user "must...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Heh... solve it all... store everything in one big EAV with SCD 2 applied to eliminate the need for separate auditing or archiving... 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 10:52 am
Lynn Pettis (6/29/2009)
And that will work until the SQL Server 2000 system table "views", like sys.syscolumns, go away in a future version od SQL Server. They have been depreciated.
I'm...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 8:41 am
Peso (6/29/2009)
Or use COLLATIONCONSTRAINT ss CHECK (adp IN ('T', 'F') COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_Cp437_BIN)
That's a good check but I'd have to introduce someone to a serious volley of high speed pork chops...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:41 am
As a side bar, I'm still waiting for the OP to post code where the things he wants to use aren't actually commented out so I can be sure of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:37 am
Scott Coleman (6/29/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:33 am
Paul White (6/29/2009)
Peso (6/29/2009)
This is because I have an edited very slim version of MASTER database.
This is not something common, but you should...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 6:14 am
In order to do the concatenation to create the CSV list, some form of sub-query either in the form of an actual sub-query or in the form of a UDF...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 5:58 am
Sinshith S Anand (6/28/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 5:53 am
Chandra Sekhar Manchukonda (6/29/2009)
We can use replace function for handling them.
DECLARE @test-2...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 5:42 am
sam.walker (6/29/2009)
I've just simply compared on my server.
Rows 4096 based on huge repitition of AAAA,BB,CCCCCCCCC,D
Inline function
126 ms
123 ms
130 ms
Partial CLR plus tally table
3 ms
3 ms
3 ms
I used...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 29, 2009 at 5:39 am
Viewing 15 posts - 43,156 through 43,170 (of 59,063 total)