Viewing 15 posts - 47,356 through 47,370 (of 59,102 total)
eric (11/10/2008)
1, 'P1', 1, 2, 3, 4, 0
2, 'P1', 10,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 4:54 pm
chandrika5 (11/10/2008)
That is a good suggestion. I converted the inner select/processing to a function and am calling this function in my select statement: no cursor required
As Lynn stated, you've probably...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Something else you might want to consider... the best hardware in the world won't solve performance problems if the code isn't quite up to it. I'd probably start by...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Absolutely correct on all accounts, Steve... suggestions very similar to yours were made by myself and others but to no avail. I'm amazed at the number of managers have...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 9:32 am
Mohit (11/9/2008)
Thank-you for the comments, I didn't think RBAR would be big issue in my case because the table had limited number of rows and wasn't...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 8:47 am
That sounds more like problems with a table variable. Why aren't you using a temp table, instead?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 10, 2008 at 6:05 am
yep... paste the following into the "help" url box...
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/d4c26311-d9f4-432c-953a-1c1042b33c97.htm
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Kishore.P (11/7/2008)
use COALESCE function instead of IsNull or NullIf.
Why? NullIf is nothing like IsNull or Coalesce and the idea of code portability is a myth.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I'm all for normalizing data... but if no one is going to use the normalized form, then you shouldn't bother. In this case, it actually provides a negative ROI...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
SQLBOT (11/8/2008)
LOL,yes, yes... touche
In those cases when I'm strapped for extra 208k of disk, I usually drop the clustered index.
~BOT
Heh... Like you say... touche`. You're absolutely correct about...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 8, 2008 at 9:30 am
You bet... thanks for the feedback, Timothy.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 8, 2008 at 7:47 am
Because, contrary to popular belief, Clustered Indexes are NOT totally contained in the data at the Leaf level... there is an Intermediate Level containing index rows AND a Root Level,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Robert klimes (11/6/2008)
And after further investigation the number of parsed coulmns will be static.
So... how many columns?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2008 at 6:55 pm
cliffb (11/6/2008)
Jeff Moden (11/6/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Thanks... and that's a very appropriate use for that code. If it was a huge table with large gaps, I was gonna suggest a different way.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 47,356 through 47,370 (of 59,102 total)