Viewing 15 posts - 52,786 through 52,800 (of 59,091 total)
For testing purposes, how many file names are we talking about? And, if you don't mind, can you post the CREATE statment for the table, any existing indexs, and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Yowch! The data's a bloody mess. Who in their right mind would list the word "NULL" for a null in a transmitted text file nevermind add trailing spaces...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Steve Rosenbach (1/13/2005)
Jeff, you have expressed more eloquently and in far less words my frustration with ISO-11179... and I only read Part 5 - the part about naming conventions!
Thanks, Steve......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm
That's not nice... Matt was spot-on by saying you weren't providing enough information. I simply took a guess and didn't say much more than he did.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm
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
Viewing 15 posts - 52,786 through 52,800 (of 59,091 total)