Viewing 15 posts - 43,666 through 43,680 (of 59,063 total)
RBarryYoung (5/23/2009)
Say what!!! You're quoting ANSI standards??? ...Alright buddy, Who are you and what have you done with Jeff!
😀
BWAA-HAAA!!! No, I haven't lost my tin hat,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The author of that article didn't do his homework on joins. There is no Natural Join in SQL Server. And, if you research it a bit, if such...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Florian Reischl (5/23/2009)
Also very clean to use an tab-lock and an index hint to ensure the order!
Just so long as no one thinks they can do that with a non-clustered...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Very cool, Flo. We're getting all of the running total methods out in the open. Care to write a CLR for this bad boy?
The INNER JOIN method, which...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Heh... curiously enough, Microsoft and Oracle have two different descriptions of what a "natural" join is.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/136699
[font="Arial Black"]The Equi-Join and Natural Join[/font]
Almost all joins, including all examples given so far, are...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm
The inline code jumped from 41 seconds at 10,000 rows to 170 seconds for 20,000 rows. In other words, the amount of time increases by a factor of 4...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Florian Reischl (5/23/2009)
One question:
Did you figure out if a cross join performs better...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That's a "running total" problem. Inline queries are ok for only the smallest of collections. See the following for why...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/61539/
If you have more than small collections of data...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 1:22 pm
First, this series of articles is good and I won't take anything away from the author on it. Well done.
But, I agree with many of the others when it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Mitch Miller (5/21/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Florian Reischl (5/23/2009)
Jeff Moden (5/23/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm
RBarryYoung (5/23/2009)
Jeff Moden (5/23/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Despite their undoubted depth of their knowledge and frightening intelligence, those in charge of the T-SQL language at Microsoft often lack recent frontline experience. In this respect, they are less...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm
ningaraju.n (5/22/2009)
but i have 200 to 300 tables in my db... i have to apply search for all tables like i descriged above .... i think its not good...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm
martin.edward (5/23/2009)
I need to understand more about queries If am to move from the simple SELECT statements to t-sql dynamic queries. Where can I start ?
Start here for a stong...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
Viewing 15 posts - 43,666 through 43,680 (of 59,063 total)