Viewing 15 posts - 44,911 through 44,925 (of 59,101 total)
If you were to go through the code and document it, I'll just be you could figure it out yourself. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Make the view without the WHERE clause. Use the WHERE clause when selecting from the view.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Stanley Pagenel (2/27/2009)
The procedure is use to set a flag in the table RRF_FICH_GPS_BRUT
Based on what? What are the business rules?
Also, please see how to post sample data in...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 9:01 pm
SELECT @CompanyID = company_id FROM updated
Your code contains the line above... there's no such thing as an UPDATED table inside the trigger. Do you have a table outside the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:59 pm
MrBaseball34 (2/27/2009)
So you must ALSO create a TSQL wrapper for them. Man, what good is having to do that?Someone must be nuts to use CLR SPs...
Heh... finally... someone besides me...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Christopher...
Let's think about this... what harm would it cause if all the items were equal and we still did the update anyway? Unless you have triggers or a TIMESTAMP...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I'd definitely suggest you read the article that Bit Bucket pointed you to, but not until you understand how a Tally table actually replaces a loop in situations like this....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:31 pm
sp_cursorfetch isn't something the 3rd party vendor wrote into their code... it's what get's used as a result of their code (or anyone's code).
They key here is, and I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Double post folks... no answers here, please. Goto the following URL instead...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic666037-149-1.aspx
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:02 pm
See the splitter example in the following article...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/TSQL/62867/
Also... if guaranteed to only have 3 parts, lookup PARSENAME in Books Online.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 8:01 pm
And, yes... I wish there was a Phd for those who pretty much specialize in the code.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 7:53 pm
That works just fine, but there's only 100,000 numbers available that way. This type of serialization is really bad just because of that... even if the numeric sequence is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 7:51 pm
jminette (2/27/2009)
Ok, there's not one....but if there were I think I'd like to be a SQL Proctologist. :hehe:Hey, it's Friday...this is the best I got.
Heh... Proctologist... reminds me of a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Lookup GRANT and ROLES in Books Online... it comes free with SQL Server.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Because the query produces a downline and you're trying to calculate the upline targets, you will need a separate correlated subquery UPDATE (maybe a CROSS-APPLY but haven't tried it) to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 27, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 44,911 through 44,925 (of 59,101 total)