Viewing 15 posts - 50,431 through 50,445 (of 59,099 total)
Wouldn't INSERT/EXEC do the job you're looking for?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 5:12 pm
System date format needs to be set to dmy server wide. I can't, for the life of me, remember how to set it server wide, but a trip...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:26 am
Does the production machine use VM by any chance? Does it have auto-shrink turned on, especially on TempDB by any chance?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:20 am
I agree... adding an IDENTITY column to the table will take care of it.
And, Sequence tables are notorious for causing deadlocks in SQL Server because most folks don't write the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:16 am
37 to 65 milliseconds.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:13 am
If you're using WinZip, you'll need the "pro" version, which comes with command-line abilitites, and a trip to the "shell", what ever it's called in SSIS.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:11 am
Piotr Rodak (5/20/2008)
I gave it a bash, see if this can work for you:
That will work fine on small chunks of data, but recursion is inherently RBAR and therefor slow.
The...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:10 am
I agree... clustered index with an index hint on it or and order by is required and you've been lucky with the order so far.
What are you doing that requires...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:07 am
It's not done by Excel... it's done by the query. Add this to it...
WHERE ESASKSIZE > ' '
AND ESBIDSIZE > ' '
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 8:05 am
You would get 100 if you weren't also grouping by customer name and date as in your original code.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 7:28 am
If you substitute the word "table" for "database", I'd agree with that.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 7:25 am
All 3 work just fine if all you want to do is to detect that there is one or more. #3 is the fastest for this purpose. #1...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 7:21 am
No... redundant data is not necessary. Like I said, you could use a trigger to pull this off.
Just curious... why do you want to do this? What is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 7:19 am
I believe you can limit that a bit by using the WITH (ROWLOCK) hint on the update.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 1:50 am
Yes... your code for the trigger... let's see it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2008 at 1:45 am
Viewing 15 posts - 50,431 through 50,445 (of 59,099 total)