Viewing 15 posts - 43,831 through 43,845 (of 59,101 total)
I'm confused... why would you put over 4 million comments together only to break them apart again?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm
RBarryYoung (5/10/2009)
Jeff Moden (5/10/2009)
GilaMonster (5/10/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 2:43 pm
GilaMonster (5/10/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 10:04 am
I don't get it... maybe it was a service pack or something, but even Paul N's odd code produces the correct ordered MAV in 2k5. What the heck are...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 9:32 am
Paul White (5/10/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 9:23 am
RBarryYoung (5/9/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 8:33 am
I agree... the CLR solutions, especially that one, look pretty good.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2009 at 8:20 am
Ok... first of all, the following code assumes that you have a Tally table that has at least a count of 8000. I'm currently using a Tally table with...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Heh... oh my... :hehe: I believe I've found the secret as to why Cross Apply makes the Tally table solutions run so fast. It forces an unnatural ORDER...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Peter,
Sorry man. I tested against 1000 lines of 800 comma separated random numbers each in a VARCHAR(8000) environment... your code did the split into a table at a minute...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Phil Factor (5/1/2009)
...but their developers seem unable to fix things so they work like they used to.
Ouch.
They're doing all they can to put in a better solution ASAP. The problem...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Peter,
How do I determine what the optimal sector size in your splitter code should be?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Sorry, Peter... I got it. You were talking about the code in the previous post.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 8:06 pm
peter (5/5/2009)
Thanks for the information Jeff...care to take a quick look at what your string splitter evolved into as well?
Sorry Peter... I'm out of coffee and I'm not sure of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Sorry, Phil... the proc you attached came out as one huge line. I won't even start to look at something like that.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 9, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 43,831 through 43,845 (of 59,101 total)