Viewing 15 posts - 52,336 through 52,350 (of 59,091 total)
Ummm... why is Cross-Apply necessary here? Seems to be a bit of overkill when the simple substrings would probably do just fine...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Something like this will get you started...
SELECT OBJECT_NAME(sc.ID) AS Name,
so.XType,
sc.Text
FROM...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Just a different approach... note that this is only good if within 60 minutes as the OP seemed to indicate wanting... (09:13)...
DECLARE @StartDate DATETIME
DECLARE @EndDate DATETIME
SET...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Nicely done folks...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
That's because you didn't do like Matt did... you must include a delimiter on either side of what you're searching for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Ummm... looking back at some of the code in this thread...
Make sure that the INDEX you're using in the hint is a clustered index... there's the possibility that a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It just works that way... you can execute just about any stored procedure the same way. It's like doing a PRINT to do an immediate calculation.
But if you mix...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Heh... no problem... I just like thoughtful code that helps the OP... the approaches to the problem were interesting.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Jack Corbett (2/26/2008)
Can you post how you would solve this? I don't care the delimiter I just want to see the easy solution. Since I have not found...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Jack Corbett (2/26/2008)
When is a CTE the best tool for the job.
Just about anytime, Jack. Like I said, internally they're no different than a derived table and they...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 3:52 pm
CTE... derived table... doesn't matter to me... they both do the same thing. I will admit a bit of a preference towards CTE's because it allows "top down" programming...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 10:36 am
Lynn Pettis (2/26/2008)
This may not answer your question, but it may help you figure out what you need to do
Nice!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 10:27 am
darkins (2/26/2008)
I am not the greatest TSQL guy (not even the not so greatest) so here is a question.
I have two tables. One has 1 "A" Record (table a) and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
If you really want this to fly, use a SELECT/INTO with the correct calculation... once you're sure the data is correct, rename the tables and add the correct indexes to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:49 am
That's likely the problem then... Not 100% sure, but I believe that if you don't actually have a clustered index on the table, it will never show defragmentation correctly.
Good...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:19 am
Viewing 15 posts - 52,336 through 52,350 (of 59,091 total)