Viewing 15 posts - 44,671 through 44,685 (of 59,095 total)
Heh... ya just gotta know what the next question on this will be... 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 8:28 pm
LoveSQL (3/10/2009)
Can some one help me writing the following query?
Update the Seq numbers in the table below. Seq numbers must be ordered by their CreateDate and reset for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 8:24 pm
asita (3/10/2009)
Hello GSquared,i applied SUBSTRING([DateString], 1, 6) + SUBSTRING([DateString], 9, 2) it is working fine, given by Todd
thank you for your valuable response
Best regards
bujji.
That also means that you've learned...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm
But, again, and as Flo suggested... SQL Server is NOT the place to do such formatting unless it's for direct output to a file sans any trip through a GUI...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 8:15 pm
scorpio_zz19 (3/10/2009)
i searched how to split the date from datetime data type and i came up with this code(below), the problem is that i dont know where to put it.
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I just got done doing one like this a coupe of weeks ago. The problem is the aggregation... you're trying to aggregate in the presence of way too many...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 7:48 pm
As Flo implied, variable length columns in SQL Server 2005 are handled quite a bit differently than they were in SQL Server 2000. For example, the following would cause...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Chris Morris (3/10/2009)
Wayne (3/9/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm
GSquared (3/10/2009)
Jeff Moden (3/10/2009)
I'll have to look for it, but...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Yeah... I agree... the written requirements weren't that clear. The desired return posted along with the attempted code and the existing data was the key.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Richard Hurst (3/10/2009)
I just did because the whole thing was driving...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Spikemarks (3/10/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm
robert.mason (3/10/2009)
Jeff Moden (3/6/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm
You bet, Todd... Thanks for the feedback. Heh... It's amazing how long the myth of Select/Into has managed to survive.
I'll have to look for it, but I've got a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for the kudo, Ross :blush:
I also understand that there are times when the Consultant or other 3rd party wants to protect proprietary code through encryption... that, too, should be...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2009 at 6:27 am
Viewing 15 posts - 44,671 through 44,685 (of 59,095 total)