Viewing 15 posts - 51,481 through 51,495 (of 59,098 total)
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
Here's a couple of facts for you...
Creating a temp table that holds 750000 rows of primary keys of rows to be deleted takes 2.1 seconds using SELECT/INTO.
Adding a primary key...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 6:08 am
blahknow (3/25/2008)
My stored procedure accepts 2 parameters: names, number of names like this: (name1, name2, name3,3) Problem is: the number of names changes each time i want to run...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 4:59 am
Mahesh Bote (3/28/2008)
Better you go for XML.
A well formed UDF or open code that uses a Tally table to do the split will blow the doors off of any form...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 4:53 am
If it's for a join, as you say... why are you concerned with converting it back to a number? Just join to it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 28, 2008 at 4:42 am
Rather than testing your code on 300 million rows, here's some code that generates a million rows of test data. This particular code also has what I call a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Harveysburger (3/27/2008)
gotta say although it's not the most popular answer your arguments are strong
thanks for the input, I will meditate on that for a while and see...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 27, 2008 at 6:07 pm
John Rowan (3/27/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 27, 2008 at 5:54 pm
erdem (2/28/2008)
How can I prevent duplicate values on a row without using Primary keys?
For example you can easily see that Sales price2 and sales price3 are same.How can I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 27, 2008 at 8:14 am
Viewing 15 posts - 51,481 through 51,495 (of 59,098 total)