Viewing 15 posts - 51,241 through 51,255 (of 59,102 total)
Grant Fritchey (4/7/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Uh, huh... several different ways in the following URL along with some performance pit-falls to avoid...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Test+Data/61572/
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It would be an aggregate query to sum all the CDRs (Call Detail Records for Telephone Billing) for a about 120 thousand customers in a 4-5 million row table. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (4/7/2008)
Yikes!Just put it in the Version Control script for database creation 🙂
Hi Steve,
As with Matt, I always appreciate it when you jump in on one of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Matt Miller (4/7/2008)
That level of detail ain't going to help you much.
Matt... thanks for the help. You're right, though... not a big fan of CLRs but could be convinced...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Matija Lah (4/7/2008)
Almost. If there's a view of the same name in the current database then the local view will be used.
Thanks Matija Lah... I agree... that's why it's never...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Matt Miller (4/7/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 2:47 pm
meghna.bhargav (4/7/2008)
In sql , how it can be done?thanks
Like I said in my previous post, I don't think spreading a single header over 3 columns can be done. I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 7:38 am
I don't know if it can be done in reporting services... header "cells" would need to be "merged" as if on a spreadsheet. I'm sure it can't be done...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 7:15 am
Sorry... I'm still not getting it and I want to make sure... you posted the following...
for item : A B
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 7:00 am
Sergiy (4/6/2008)
Don't remember exactly how many rows were...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 6:52 am
rbarryyoung (4/7/2008)
Well, NOT IN has had some bugs in SQL Server 2000, so that is certainly possible. They are mostly cleared up in Sql2005.
What kind of bugs, Barry?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 6:51 am
You will never get an INDEX SEEK using SELECT *... only index scans.
My most sincere apologies... the comment above does NOT apply to INDEXED VIEWs.
What matters is what you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 6:36 am
rbarryyoung (4/6/2008)
Jeff Moden (4/6/2008)
Heh... I handed Babbage gears 😉Good one. 🙂
I was serious about my Uncle though, he really did do all of that stuff.
I have no...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 5:57 am
Either way, you're going to annoy someone!
Not to worry... Anyone who actually takes the time to get upset at either isn't someone you have to worry about offending because, although...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2008 at 5:51 am
Viewing 15 posts - 51,241 through 51,255 (of 59,102 total)