Viewing 15 posts - 48,526 through 48,540 (of 59,095 total)
Heh... still haven't put that link in your signature line, eh Barry? 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The Order BY you have affects the WHOLE query, UNION and all... you need to trick the 2nd query into a standalone query even in the presence of the UNION...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 9:05 pm
simon phoenix (8/30/2008)
Now only job is to trap the begining and end of those distinct sequence and i think i can do it.
Missed that... sorry. Easy to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 8:50 pm
simon phoenix (8/30/2008)
Rog
You are the SQl Guru, Thanks a lot , i really appreciat it, it was just bugging my head since last week. Now only job is to trap...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Heh... ok... my turn. 🙂 And sorry it took me so long to get to this problem...
First, in order to be fast and short, this fun problem does ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Sorry... My bad... Roger's too. That syntax, starting at ROWS, isn't part of T-SQL in SQL Server 2005.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 7:25 pm
What do you get when you do the following, Gan?
[font="Courier New"]DECLARE @SomeNumber INT
SELECT @SomeNumber = Number
FROM Master.dbo.spt_Values
SELECT @SomeNumber[/font]
How many rows were processed? If...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 5:47 pm
You're talking about "defrag" and then you say "rebuild". Which is it that you are doing?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Ummm... I thought Rog gave a solution that didn't include RAC... take a look at his post again. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:50 pm
If execute just the create proc code, you get no errors on creation.
If you execute the proc in AdventureWorks, you get no run errors.
What's the problem? 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Mick,
You've laid out what you want to do quite nicely. I won't get into the lecture on "normalizing" the data but what is the real data and why do...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Heh... do you think that 150,000,000,000 is gonna fit in an INT in SQL Server? 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Does the Oracle table have the same number of rows in test and prod? Does the Oracle table in test and prod have the same indexes? When you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Just a thought... why not keep the alpha and numeric portions separate and combine them only in a calculated column??? Then you wouldn't have to mess with all of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Mike Mullen (8/29/2008)
Here is another solution that builds on the previous suggestions. This one handles a few more variations of the text data and the number to be added.
Yes, it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 48,526 through 48,540 (of 59,095 total)