Same thing, though... use MAX instead of SUM...

That'll work... just be advised that it does contain a "partitioned" triangular join and if there're a large number of Pr_ID's for each agent, there will be a big time...

Yep... that'll work, too! Haven't tested it for performance, though.

1) Would I need to do a union all necessarily? Is it just considered good housekeeping to do it or does it serve a distinct purpose within this statement?

Heh... First,...

I know lot's of good folks that like it, but I don't care for Oracle much, either. Many will disagree with me, but I find it too limiting.

jeffkretz (12/2/2008)

---

Gaby Abed (12/2/2008)[hr

Agreed...I'm working on my MCTS for SQL 2005 but I plan to emphasize my experience first on the resumes and keep the certification at the end, probably...

Heh... sorry... just over a year late on this one...

Leap year calculations don't need to be complex in SQL Server...

ISDATE(STR(@Year,4)+'0229')

Thought I'd revisit this one... calculation for Leap Years can be a lot more simple...

ISDATE(STR(@Year,4)+'0229')

... or a nice article on SSC, Phil. 😉

vijinarav (12/1/2008)

---

we are testing the server performance like both disk's read-write performance while using sql server with the load, so to get differrent load (throughput) all we need to change...

Ninja's_RGR'us (12/1/2008)

---

Steve Jones - Editor (12/1/2008)

---

I'd bet...

You can simulate an indexed view... just make a preaggregated table as suggested before.

You just...

As previously posted, WAITFOR DELAY will get you to the nearest 3 milliseconds. If you want microseconds, just to a couple of PRINT statements.

That's exactly what SQL Server 2008 is... the ultimate service pack for 2005 😉