Viewing 15 posts - 44,026 through 44,040 (of 59,101 total)
Scott Roberts (4/27/2009)
While I would completely agree that cursors are "significantly harmful", I'm not yet convinced that they are "no longer necessary".
Skepticism is certainly understood, especially on the types...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 9:55 pm
jim.rasmussen (4/27/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 7:46 pm
GSquared (4/27/2009)
To deal with times that don't have enough leading zeroes, you can either padd the string, or you can reverse it. Either one works.
As is usually the case,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Actually, it only looked like the ORDER BY method worked in my article. It wasn't the ORDER BY that made it work. Of course, I'm just a day...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Johan,
Run the first test using the clustered index as it is. Then, drop the clustered index and add a new one based on some other columns. Run your...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Andrew L. Smith (4/27/2009)
I agree with this for the most part, but have an exception that I would like to see if you have an answer for. For example, I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/27/2009)
Since there was no production problem I had, after this input I could show my chief some really great new things and it causes that some parts of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Florian Reischl (4/27/2009)
The String Enumerator (I just called it "String Enumerator" for better understanding what it does) performs very good! Especially for more rows. I just tried with some...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Adam Machanic (4/27/2009)
I have posted a more scalable SQLCLR string split method here:
Thanks to Paul White for pointing me to this thread. Please consider testing all of these...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:30 pm
And, sorry... I read past it in the previous post. Lynn is correct... you can only execute extended stored procedures in a function. But what good would it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm
JJ B (4/27/2009)
the vendor has designed their application to force a row-by-row approach because they don't know any better. So as you say, you don't really have a choice other...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (4/27/2009)
I find the syntax of cursors annoying and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Andy DBA (4/27/2009)
Thanks for the post! I bet that blows the function based approach out of the water!
Like anything else, it depends... I've seen it go both ways. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 10:56 am
Samuel Vella (4/27/2009)
Any cursor based operation can be replaced with an external application 😛
Absolutely true. But it's still amazing to me what people actually think they need a cursor...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 10:53 am
Samuel Vella (4/27/2009)
Jeff Moden (4/27/2009)
Heh... in SQL Server 2005, even that can be done without a cursor. We're just gonna have to wait for it in Barry's series of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 27, 2009 at 10:48 am
Viewing 15 posts - 44,026 through 44,040 (of 59,101 total)