Viewing 15 posts - 46,681 through 46,695 (of 59,095 total)
Nope... no style wars... I'm just tired of people blaming it on the ability to comment out rows easier. The difference between the two styles only affects the ease...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 11, 2008 at 5:30 am
Heh... that bit of info should be as a comment in the code. 😉
Anyway, works good.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 11, 2008 at 5:19 am
I also don't see anything that would prevent "overruns"... what happens if you use 1001 of any given sequence? Either BOOM or duplication.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 11, 2008 at 5:15 am
Be very careful... There is nothing there that will keep 2 or more simultaneous calls to the same code from returning the same number.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 11, 2008 at 5:02 am
Sure, but as others have already stated, a table source for this is the best way to go. The following code will solve the problem without a table, though....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Post the OSQL command, please.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm
EAV won't be a slow as you think. It'll process about 12 million rows in about 7 seconds.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 9:05 pm
halifaxdal (12/10/2008)
Here is my task:
I have couple records marked as integrity = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4
I need to write a query to pull out all...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Heh... I hate it when impatient people pull this crap... this is a double post... please, no more answers on this thread... go to the following, instead...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Post.aspx?SessionID=gjq2tn3letp4qj554vsxeizy
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:55 pm
mmiruru (12/10/2008)
This function worked perfectly for what I needed to do. Thank you very much for your help.
First, it's not nice to double post.
Second, the function may work perfectly for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Heh... to heck with all that... start answering posts on this forum with code! 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Nicely done, Peter.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I don't know how you'd do it in SSIS, but here's the T-SQL solution...
--===== Create a place to hold test data and populate it.
-- Note...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Zeev Kazhdan (12/10/2008)
Instead of group by, you might think of OVER (PARTITION BY...)
Why?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm
... and let me know if you still need a variable for the date...
And, never use INT for such a conversion because it rounds up to the next day for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 46,681 through 46,695 (of 59,095 total)