Viewing 15 posts - 52,771 through 52,785 (of 59,072 total)
I do. In fact, I wrote an article about it that should be coming out soon! It was submitted way back on 11 Dec 2007...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm
And that, folks, is a Triangular join... works seemingly fine on small groups... cripples CPU's on larger groups... be careful...
See the following URL for more details on Triangular joins...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/61539/
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Simply stated, there is no equivalent for Oracle's spool command. You can use OSQL with a DOS redirect to a file or BCP or DTS or...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Gregory,
I'm curious... What size (in gig or tera-bytes) is your OLTP and Reporting databases?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Best thing you could do for answers to all of that, and more, is to lookup "System Tables" in Books Online (comes free with SQL Server) and drill down to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Terri (1/22/2008)
According to MSDN sp_makewebtask has been deprecated and should not be used in new development.
And another great tool bites the dust.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 7:44 am
The stored procedure won't be run in Query Analyzer which is why SQL Server's tools won't help.
Well, where will it be run from... it'll make a difference.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:15 am
I haven't tried to find the information in 2k5, but you really need to be careful... although the max number of columns may be 1024 per table, you need to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:07 am
I hate cross posting...
Anyway, like I said on the other forum, the correct date format number is NOT 103... it's 104. Check out Books Online under CONVERT.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:04 am
As someone said above, date format #103 is NOT valid for this style of date. Check Books Online under CONVERT... the style you are looking for is style #...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 4:55 am
No... cannot change the limit in SQL Server 2000.
Yes, you can work around it... take a look at "Expanding Hierarchies" in Books Online for details.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2008 at 3:14 pm
T-SQL is great for manipulating data but writing a hashing algorithm in T-SQL would be a nightmare.
Never tried it because I just haven't had to do it. However, with...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2008 at 7:24 am
Sorry, Terry... I don't know enough about the client known as SSIS to flip a nickel. I'm just assuming (bad thing to do, I guess) that it has some...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2008 at 7:18 am
Misnomer would be correct... client could/will, indeed, pick it up as a "failure" because some error message as you said. Of course, that should be handled...
Loading the table...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2008 at 7:05 am
Then, you need to do as I said... check out the "What's New" section of each release on the Microsoft website.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2008 at 6:56 am
Viewing 15 posts - 52,771 through 52,785 (of 59,072 total)