Viewing 15 posts - 46,861 through 46,875 (of 59,095 total)
puneet shadija (12/1/2008)
since we have many threads, which may concurrently try to insert a record to this table, thus I have used this lock to prevent this from happening
You just...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:54 pm
As previously posted, WAITFOR DELAY will get you to the nearest 3 milliseconds. If you want microseconds, just to a couple of PRINT statements.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:40 pm
That's exactly what SQL Server 2008 is... the ultimate service pack for 2005 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I store the output in two tables and do a Full Outer Join on their key columns to compare.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Much better... if you have a joined update, the object of the join MUST be in the FROM clause or you could end up pinning 4 cpu's to the wall...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Lynn Pettis (11/28/2008)
Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but couldn't you consider user training of an application using SQL Server 2005 as the database backend a "demonstration use"?
Ya beat me...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Simon,
You're kinda new to the forum... take a look at the link in my signature below to get better, tested answers quicker...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm
For more infomation on the method used above, please see the following link...
[font="Arial Black"]Solving the "Running Total" & "Ordinal Rank" Problems in SS 2k/2k5
[/font][/url]
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:07 pm
This is how you do ROW_NUMBER() OVER in SQL Server 2000 with any performance at all. It's almost as fast as ROW_NUMBER () OVER...
Using the test data previously provided...
--=====...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I'm probably the world's biggest fan of the Tally table... keep that in mind when I say that Tally table solutions are probably not appropriate nor as fast as a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 7:22 pm
You might find that SELECT TOP (xxxx) works pretty well as a sub for the Limit statement, as well.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The PIVOT method is slower than a good ol' fashioned cross-tab... see the following article, please.
[font="Arial Black"]Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns[/font][/url]
Also, dunno if you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Basically, you're trying to pass a "table" or "array" of data in that it has rows and columns. Please see the following article...
Passing Parameters...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The correct syntax is WITH (TABLOCKX)... parenthesis included.
Also, Seth pointed out some basic faults with you code like missing an anchor column... go back a take a look at his...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Ummm... wouldn't an index view work just fine here?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 46,861 through 46,875 (of 59,095 total)