Viewing 15 posts - 51,466 through 51,480 (of 59,091 total)
Ignacio A. Salom Rangel (3/27/2008)
I think that you should Really consider using third party tools.
Don't leave us hanging... spit it out.. WHICH 3rd party tools would you recommend?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Mike C (3/28/2008)
I get a clustered index scan when I run your code. The optimizer expands it out to RowNum <> 1 AND RowNum <> 2 AND RowNum <> 3.
Hmmm......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 5:06 pm
blahknow (3/26/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 5:00 pm
dfalso (3/28/2008)
Jeff Moden (3/28/2008)
Any code to go along with this "FWIW"? 😉What, you want answers too? 🙂
Heh... no... just wanted to know if I was gonna have to write some......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Gregg Walker (3/28/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Jim Russell (3/28/2008)
Since nulls will group together in a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm
kaspencer (3/28/2008)
However, I do not consider the NULL to be "missing data". The NULL must simply be considered as either "no value", or "value not [yet] assigned".
Heh... what the heck...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Mike C (2/25/2006)
NULL is not a value...
Spot on! Hence the T-Shirt that says "NULL Is NOT Nothing!" 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Matt Miller (3/28/2008)
Jeff Moden (3/28/2008)
Bad test, I think, Matt. You would never use 1 = NULL... not sure how that applies.
I'm drawing a comparison (or rather - highlighting the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Matt Miller (3/28/2008)
Jeff Moden (3/28/2008)
I normally don't work NULLs against "TRUE/FALSE" values even in WHERE clauses... I normally work them against...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 12:48 pm
...and so is WHERE <>...
--===== Now, do a WHERE <> and check the execution plan... INDEX SEEK!!!
SELECT * FROM jbmtest WHERE RowNum <> 3
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Mike C (2/27/2006)
Both of which, by the way, are non-SARGable in WHERE clauses...
??? :blink: Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but WHERE NOT IN most certainly IS...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm
dfalso (3/28/2008)
blahknow (3/28/2008)
This is how it works
"myPhones" is a stored procedure to supply the telemarketing personnel phone numbers to make phone calls.
phone numbers are stored in various tables of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Good article... and I realize it's a couple years old...
I normally don't work NULLs against "TRUE/FALSE" values even in WHERE clauses... I normally work them against some form of data......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 7:58 am
vmsbalaji (3/28/2008)
Suppose i am having 10 tables in a database.in that 10 tables,5 tables are having the column value as 'cat'.i need 5 tables name alone.more over it must...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 6:16 am
Viewing 15 posts - 51,466 through 51,480 (of 59,091 total)