Viewing 15 posts - 52,351 through 52,365 (of 59,098 total)
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
antonio.collins (2/25/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:16 am
Marios Philippopoulos (2/26/2008)
Even with the 100 possible columns involved here, I'm sure a handful...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:11 am
Matt's solution will work perfectly for statuses up to 7998 characters long if stored in a VARCHAR(8000) and much more than that if in a VARCHAR(MAX)...
If you end up...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 7:06 am
I've never had the luxury (or maybe its "PITA") of working with something like Crystal reports or ASP or any of that nice GUI reporting stuff... I agree, it should...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 26, 2008 at 12:15 am
nazish,
It would be a big help if you provided some sample data according to the following article... help us help you... thanks...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 25, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Wow... looks like I have a bit of checking to do... thanks, Matt.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 25, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Oh, I agree... the suggestion of sorting at the client means that you're sorting only the desired result set and no extra/unwanted data. Don't wanna "pop the pipe". ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm
If you can write an "IN" like that, then you can also write it as a JOIN to a derived table. A derived table is a query in parenthesis...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 25, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 52,351 through 52,365 (of 59,098 total)