Viewing 15 posts - 44,506 through 44,520 (of 59,097 total)
ab5sr (3/21/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
You get no argument by me... I'd much rather use the highly scalable high performance method of using IDENTITY than going through all of the headaches of using the likes...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 11:28 am
... and, I apologize for not being able to help you with your original question.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 10:40 am
Giovanni (3/21/2009)
I know about the ever going discussion on pros/cons, dos/donts between CLR UDTs/UDs and T-SQL ones.
I must admit I am not a fan of religion wars, so I generally...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 10:38 am
Dangit... sorry folks... I posted in a hurry and left out the underscore in ROW_NUMBER(). Andrew has the correct code and I went back to my previous erroneous post...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 9:36 am
Lynn Pettis (3/20/2009)
Jeff Moden (3/20/2009)
If you did it your way, which numbers would be reserved if you needed 100 numbers as the increment?
You know, I was looking at it from...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 21, 2009 at 9:21 am
Heh... I agree... all of the technology is fasinating. But the thing that increases my productivity the most is... downtime. Even the hour long drive to work is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 9:16 pm
cmaciasg (3/19/2009)
How could manage all that stuff dinamically? That is, If the columns aren´t 3, but many of them, col1, col2, col3, ...., coln....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Then the query I included with my post should do it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Florian Reischl (3/19/2009)
I've begun a new project and my predecessor used a char(10) field as the primary key in all tables. The key is generated by using the last 10...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:54 pm
My answer would be that the DBA chases you with a well equipped pork chop launcher until your heals smoke because you selected too much data. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I'd have to ask what you're doing with CLR's that you think you can't do in T-SQL.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:43 pm
josephptran2002 (3/20/2009)
Please please please email me at josephptran2002@hotmail.com So I can explain to you on the regular mail.
Nah... keep it all here so we might all learn something, please.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:40 pm
ramu.valleti (3/20/2009)
what do you mean by "single query".?You can use sub queries to achieve this.
Regards,
Ramu
Cool... let's see it, Ramu.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Ok... again... here's the test data...
drop table #OriginalTable
go
SELECT '913.135.9000 x:6390' AS FullPhoneNumber
INTO #OriginalTable UNION ALL
SELECT '(305)529-6911x2101' UNION ALL
SELECT '(206)965-2626' UNION ALL
SELECT '109.391.3261' UNION...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 44,506 through 44,520 (of 59,097 total)