Viewing 15 posts - 52,051 through 52,065 (of 59,091 total)
Make that 3... it looks like they also fixed the non-wrapping problem on long thread names!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Jeff Moden (3/6/2008)
DROP TABLE mm_CompanyNo
DROP PROCEDURE GetNextCustNo
GO
--==============================================================================================
-- Setup for the test
--==============================================================================================
--===== Create sequence table...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Nah... they need an absolute Ninja, Sam... they want to let everyone run rough shod over the database and the server but still keep it running. They need to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Jacob Luebbers (3/6/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Most people use the default settings for auto-grow and DB size... that's 10% and 1 MByte. Now, lemme tell you why it's REALLY bad to do that... first, what...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 4:21 pm
No offense... but this isn't really something that someone "new to SQL Server" should be asked to handle. You need to hire a good DBA to help you do...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm
It's a bug... turn off task pad by selecting a different kind of view... then, turn it back on. Problem should fix itself. If it doesn't you may...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm
John, you happen to have come to the right place at the right time...
There are several methods to do this, but for shear performance, nothing beats the method I'm getting...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Chris Schanno (3/6/2008)
Yes, I would consider using a cursor over the set based approach depending on the circumstances such as the size of the dataset and use for which I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Sorry, previous knowledge... he's asked for it before on a different thread.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Jacob Luebbers (3/6/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The join needs to be part of the covering index or you will only get a scan.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The tuning wizard is recommending a full blown "Covering Index" and it's a good thing to have for a heavy duty set of SELECT's like this. It will, however...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The only way either of those would fail is if the data is different that what you said. Please post some sample data and a table to load it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm
a-brbeck (3/6/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 52,051 through 52,065 (of 59,091 total)