Viewing 15 posts - 47,881 through 47,895 (of 59,095 total)
jcrawf02 (10/7/2008)
Jeff Moden (10/6/2008)
This forum is a bit odd... it sometimes turns left parenthesis into smiley faces.I'm sorry, is that one statement or two? 😀
Heh... now that I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 6:42 pm
jcrawf02 (10/7/2008)
Or are we waiting for Porkslinger 😛 to give us another followup article?
Heh... what an idea... maybe I'll title it "Porkslinger: Have Chops, Will Travel." 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 8:22 am
... and, if you write it correctly, it will also do just one "record" correctly, as well.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 8:15 am
Two set based "passes", if needed, will still be light years faster than nested loops.
I'm "old school", too, but I sure don't mind being called "Jeff" on these forums. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 8:07 am
dr_csharp (10/7/2008)
CREATE TRIGGER test ON CallRecorder
FOR INSERT
AS
DECLARE @RecId INT;
DECLARE @BeginTime NVARCHAR(8);
SELECT @RecId=RecId,@BeginTime=BeginTime FROM Inserted
set @BeginTime=substring(@BeginTime,1,3);
Update CallRecorder
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 8:03 am
GilaMonster (10/7/2008)
Jeff Moden (10/7/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:55 am
J (10/7/2008)
Another application where I was dead sure the only way to do it was a double set of cursors: calculating the FIFO value of an inventory.
Outer loop: items...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:49 am
J (10/7/2008)
Well, cursors are easy to code. Is there a place on this earth where they are the most appropriate solution ?
Actually, in SQL Server 2000, there are places where...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:47 am
Oh yeah... almost forgot... you could also use UNPIVOT... look it up. I don't use it... I normally do it the way you did it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:37 am
The way you did it is fine, Karthik... only change I would make is to change all the UNION's into UNION ALL for performance and data integrity reasons. UNION...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:36 am
Dugi (10/7/2008)
Jeff Moden (10/7/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:32 am
This type of concatenation is usually a bad idea especially if your intent is to store the result somewhere in the database as permanent data (not that you are, but...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:29 am
tendayit (10/7/2008)
I tested the modified procedure and it is better than the one i posted on the site. Thank you very much. I came across something this morning that i...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:24 am
What Gail means is that there is no reason to use a cursor to do a "Cross Tab" report. Now, I'm not going to troubleshoot the size stored procedure...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:07 am
You can always use SET ROWCOUNT 1 and then do the delete. Don't forget to set the rowcount back to 0.
It does, however, show the fundamental flaw that others...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 7, 2008 at 7:01 am
Viewing 15 posts - 47,881 through 47,895 (of 59,095 total)