Viewing 15 posts - 45,226 through 45,240 (of 59,095 total)
Please see the article at the link in my signature below. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Grant Fritchey (2/12/2009)
GilaMonster (2/12/2009)
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost655667.aspx
I want to do a PhD in the area of database optimisers. Can anyone suggest a good topic?
Gees, it took me months of reading to decide on...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm
This is SQL Server 2005... with that in mind, you don't need the overhead of UDF's and you sure as heck don't need a cursor or While loop for such...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Thanks for the feedback, Judy.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 11, 2009 at 5:09 pm
It seems to happen every February... company finally gets a new budget for the year, hires some folks in January, and they start asking questions in February. It's compounded...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 11, 2009 at 6:12 am
Thank you, Anirban. You're always gracious and kind with your words.
They republish this article about every two months or so to try and help folks with their...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 11, 2009 at 6:05 am
Judy, are you all set with this?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 10, 2009 at 10:57 pm
viduvs (2/10/2009)
Thanks for all the replies.Actually this is one time activity. So we don't want to pay much attention towards optimization of this stored procedure.
Like Gail said, that's probably why...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 10, 2009 at 10:54 pm
kbatta (2/9/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 10, 2009 at 7:01 am
In that case, this might be just a little faster because it doesn't have as many CONVERT's...
SELECT CONVERT(CHAR(11),GETDATE(),101)
+ CONVERT(CHAR( 5),GETDATE(),114)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 10:07 pm
You could always use a view.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (2/9/2009)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 5:36 pm
No... when you use any function on the column, the best that will happen is an INDEX SCAN which can actually be worse than a table scan if every row...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 5:33 pm
What is it that you really want to do? Do you just want to return a list of items that can't be converted to an INT or do you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Olga B (2/9/2009)
I suspect it's because thinking through the problem is not the norm. 😉
BWAA-HAA!!! That's the perfect answer! Thanks for the feedback, Olga! 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 45,226 through 45,240 (of 59,095 total)