Viewing 15 posts - 46,846 through 46,860 (of 59,101 total)
John Barry (12/2/2008)
Thanks - I have used that syntax as well - it's cool. And I agree if I move the Nextval outside the transaction it would solve the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 10:46 pm
One more thing... you're updating the same columns that you have in your criteria. Sometimes, and it's again unpredictable, that will cause a recompile for every row updated. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 10:42 pm
P.S. You may want to stop that single Update you're running right now. It may take several hours to rollback or it might rollback quicker. But even...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 10:38 pm
To add to what Lynn stated.... there are two reasons you need to break up such a large update... the first is the LOG file. Even with the SIMPLE...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 10:36 pm
That's not really a DateTime datatype you asked for or it would have a date with it like this...
DECLARE @Time CHAR(4)
SET @Time = '1330'
SELECT CAST(STUFF(@Time,3,0,':')...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 7:40 pm
John Barry (12/2/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Heh... if you need to borrow some porkchops... 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Bob Hovious (12/2/2008)
Seeing no way to improve on the CASE logic in the proposed solution
Heh... "Must look eye..." 😛
SET STATISTICS TIME ON
SELECT ID,
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Steps 1 through 3 can can be very easily accomplished... open the file in Excel. Step 4 is a simple "Save As". You don't need to even go near...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Same thing, though... use MAX instead of SUM...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:17 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Yep... that'll work, too! Haven't tested it for performance, though.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:07 pm
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,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 6:06 pm
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.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 46,846 through 46,860 (of 59,101 total)