Viewing 15 posts - 50,581 through 50,595 (of 59,099 total)
dporter (5/13/2008)
I need to replace the text that relates to @QuarterEndDate somehow with your idea if possible, but Iām just not sure how to go about it.
Danielle...
Hard to tell because...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 9:27 am
Absolutely correct about the cross-join... change the 11,000 to 1,000,000 and see how fast it works.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thanks, David... real good to see that you're still around, too! š
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:43 am
You'll also find a lot of folks that suggest not using them because Microsoft could change them at any time... Heck, they do that with documented features :hehe:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:39 am
Heh... I never use the first release of anything... not even from Peter š
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:37 am
Just DATEADD the two columns together and then do the simple math.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
The only thing that might beat the method in the article would be to maintain a separate table with a list of accounts and the current balance (1 row each)...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:14 am
quortex (5/13/2008)
have read the suggested article and although it is very informative it is geared towards calculating the total after the data is populated.
That's EXACTLY what you are doing...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 8:05 am
Why not just ignore the cost for Employees since they suffer no cost? That would cut the number of tables in half and also keep you from having to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 7:42 am
Peso (5/13/2008)
...
I mean no harm in posting the results. I just find it interesting that different methods and approaches to this problem have significantly...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 7:39 am
Michael Meierruth (5/13/2008)
I hope you were able to use the SS 2005 solution.When limited to SS 2000, our queries really start to slow down after a while.
Try the Peso 3...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 7:33 am
emamet (5/13/2008)
Maybe we can summarise by saying that integrated CLR is the perfect solution...but that we are still looking for the problem š
Just couldn't have said it any better than...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 7:11 am
Heh... can't wait for the mess folks are gonna make in 2k8 with the separate DATE and TIME datatypes...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 12:51 am
...and provided that the syntax of the query hasn't made it impossible.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 12:48 am
Cenk OZPAY (5/13/2008)
I have seen some performance advantages when used in scalar functions. CLR can be used when there is no corresponding T-SQL functionality like splitting a string by a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 13, 2008 at 12:45 am
Viewing 15 posts - 50,581 through 50,595 (of 59,099 total)