Viewing 15 posts - 50,836 through 50,850 (of 59,098 total)
Matt Miller (5/1/2008)
speaking of dupes...methinks we've all been duped into continuing to beat up on this topic, since the OP is long gone...:)
Yep... gotta love it when the OP bails...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Heh... sorry about the "soapbox" coming up... 😀
The "best" way to do all of this is to not let dupes into production tables to begin with. Unknown data should...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm
John Mitchell (5/1/2008)
Or this one, which uses less string manipulation, but does contain dynamic SQL:
Nicley done but, be careful... get more than 8000 characters (about 16 rows in the example...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am
Michael Valentine Jones (5/1/2008)
Jeff Moden (5/1/2008)
Michael Valentine Jones (5/1/2008)
It's probably better to avoid using a reserved word, like INDEX, for a table name.
Or "number" or "sequence" or... that's all part...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 11:50 am
RyanRandall (5/1/2008)
IIt's all much of a muchness really.
'zactly... 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:27 am
And, yeah... you could call it "Numbers"... but I'm one of those old guys where the table name shouldn't be a plural... :hehe:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:18 am
Michael Valentine Jones (5/1/2008)
It's probably better to avoid using a reserved word, like INDEX, for a table name.
Or "number" or "sequence" or... that's all part of the reason why I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:12 am
Heh... no problems there, Ryan... it'll generate a million rows very quickly for performance testing, as well.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:09 am
Although the last problem is correct, I can tell you that whoever wrote the test is probably looking for the outer join solution instead of the where not exists solution....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:48 am
You've already got one... Books Online 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:41 am
First, you might want to try asking your Oracle question on an Oracle forum... you'll usually get more correct answers that way... just a thought. 😉
Second, Oracle requires you to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am
Here's a demo of what you can do in cases like this in both SQL Server 2000 and 2005... test data included...
--drop table jbmtest
--===== Create and populate a 1000 row...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:34 am
Having one of those "where's my porkchops and slingshot" days, Grant? 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:25 am
Personally, I don't allow developers to have write access to anything in production... violates all sorts of merchant agreements and PCI standards not to mention a total lack of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 8:20 am
Thanks, Barry... I've never heard of anyone else calling such aggregations a "Tally Table", but I certainly can see where the term both applies and is convenient.
Just to throw another...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 1, 2008 at 6:41 am
Viewing 15 posts - 50,836 through 50,850 (of 59,098 total)