Viewing 15 posts - 48,166 through 48,180 (of 59,099 total)
Soorya (9/22/2008)
Problem solved. The posts were really helpful. Thanks to all those who replied
Heh... good for you, but two way street here... please tell us how you solved the problem.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Madhivanan (9/22/2008)
My reply "Yes it is" is to your reply "Heh... not exactly true..."Actually I agreed with your reply 🙂
Heh... pretty bad misunderstanding on my part. Thanks, Madhivanan.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 22, 2008 at 5:15 pm
You bet. Thanks for the feedback, Kelly. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 8:29 pm
That will certainly give you the number of bytes the datatype can or does occupy. But it will not give you the min or max values without prior knowledge...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Ummm... ok... now I understand the latest question...
The answer is that isolation of the "cell" and using it as a criteria is done as a combination of a JOIN between...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Ok... here it is... had to look. Copy the query I gave you and paste it into the SQL pane of the query designer. Make sure the table...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Heh... Sorry, I wouldn't know. I don't use query designer to design queries. What I gave you is the "core" of the query that you'd end up with.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 6:42 pm
SELECT sot.*
FROM dbo.SomeOtherTable sot
INNER JOIN dbo.TheValues tv
ON sot.TheData = tv.TheData
WHERE tv.[Desc] = 'ComPeriod'
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Being that the company you're talking about appears to be nearly ignorant of SQL in general and probably would not have used any advanced features, my suggestion would be to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Sorry... that formula makes no more sense than the origianl post. Please see the link in my signature...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 6:02 pm
psangeetha (9/19/2008)
select * from sales where (sales_id = 1123013 AND sales_in_no >= 199901 AND sales_in_no <= 199701)
This is the output I get from the execution...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Yes... please see the following link which is a bit of a "how to" along with some things to avoid when doing this type of concatenation.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Very cool. Thanks for the feedback. If you get the chance and your not violating any company agreement, could you post your final query? It might help...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Not 100% sure, but I don't believe that's what the OP is looking for. I believe they want to go someplace through T-SQL to figure out what the max...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Heh... my problem is that I don't use things like SSIS or DTS because I do it all in T-SQL. My appologies.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 48,166 through 48,180 (of 59,099 total)