Viewing 15 posts - 43,711 through 43,725 (of 59,063 total)
I agree with Flo... if, for some reason, you cannot use IDENTITY and you're stuck with SQL Server 2000 or less which prevents the use of ROW_NUMBER and the like,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 17, 2009 at 11:27 am
Jan Van der Eecken (5/17/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 17, 2009 at 10:18 am
Paul White (5/5/2009)
EdVassie (5/5/2009)
Wow what a lot of posts!
Yep, not bad. But nothing like the discussion that ensued over the string-splitting routines... 🙂
EdVassie (5/5/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 17, 2009 at 9:53 am
Alvin Ramard (5/17/2009)
Jeff Moden (5/16/2009)
Lynn Pettis (5/16/2009)
O Please great and wise gurus, for what reasons may SQL Server not allow me to create a nonclustered index?
Heh... don'cha just love homework,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 17, 2009 at 9:39 am
Rather than programming by exception using Try/Catch, it would be better to precertify the data as "insertable" using a staging table.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 10:34 pm
As well as all the things that Barry has stated, I simply won't put unknown outside data directly into it's final resting spot. I always do the validations of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Pseudo-Cursors, MAV's (Multiple Assigned Variables), NEWID() random number generators, and my long time friend, the Tally table.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Ramesh (5/16/2009)
For advanced method (i.e. Special Update method), see this article[/url] by...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Heh... with what Sergiy said in mind... I've always been distraught over the idea of restarting serialization every year and the whole idea of using a sequence table to begin...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Lynn Pettis (5/16/2009)
O Please great and wise gurus, for what reasons may SQL Server not allow me to create a nonclustered index?
Heh... don'cha just love homework, test, or interview questions?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 9:10 pm
raj_143bhoomika (5/16/2009)
When creating a non clustered index on a column...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Heh... actually, now that I lookback at it, part of the problem was, indeed, an ORDER BY. It was actually a combination of both that killed our TempDB. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 16, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Since the sproc that updates the sequence table is so very important to eliminating the cursors in other procs, the fact that it has to be super fast, and the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Nah... "my mistrake"... it's ok.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 15, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Jeff Moden (5/15/2009)
Actually, I found a bug in spDBSys_GetTableRowKey_sproc... it will never produce an id of 000001...
In fact, it never produces a new id of other than 000000 even though...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 15, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 43,711 through 43,725 (of 59,063 total)