Viewing 15 posts - 47,431 through 47,445 (of 59,099 total)
I'd probably make a Clustered PK on Phone_ID.
I'd seriously question why User_ID is going to be stored as a VARCHAR(20) but believe it would also need an index.......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Robert klimes (11/4/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Spot-on, David.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
stax68 (11/4/2008)
Jeff Moden (11/4/2008)
Keep it clean, slick. 😉
Oh, I do - mens sana in corpore sano old chap.
And, don't blame me if you don't understand what I'm saying....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Keep it clean, slick. 😉 And, don't blame me if you don't understand what I'm saying. :w00t:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm
stax68 (11/4/2008)
Jeff M:What isn't true? I am talking about the limitations on passing table variables, not string representations of arrays, so the link provided seems beside the point.
Agreed... you can't...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm
stax68 (11/4/2008)
Jeff Moden (11/4/2008)
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63003/
The author just didn't go far enough in showing how to use...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm
stax68 (11/4/2008)
What isn't true? I am talking about the limitations on passing table variables, not string representations of arrays, so the link provided seems beside the point.
Can you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Nah... not true... in SQL Server 2005 and up, there's basically no limit to passing arrays...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63003/
The author just didn't go far enough in showing how to use the EAV tables...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 5:22 am
shalu (11/4/2008)
Is there a way to reduce the time taken for the Insert statement in the cursor ? I am just blank on this.
So is everyone else... that's...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 5:11 am
You can thank Matt Miller for that little gem. I used to use RAND(NEWID), but CHECKSUM is quite a bit faster. Either way, don't need a loop because...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 5:06 am
AnzioBake (11/3/2008)
BTW Jeff, where you able to use the random data generator?
Yep... made a couple of changes to it to make it run just a little faster... give it a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 12:43 am
Jonathan Kehayias (11/3/2008)
there are those out there who would opt for the simplicity of solving a problem in CLR over the required TSQL to solve the same problem...
Heh... that's exactly...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 4, 2008 at 12:01 am
What do you want returned if 102 has NO entry for 2008-07-01, either?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Heh... you have books with no names? :hehe:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 3, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 47,431 through 47,445 (of 59,099 total)