Viewing 15 posts - 53,296 through 53,310 (of 59,072 total)
Hi Mark,
It's just the way this forum handles things when they repost an article... no updates were actually made.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Ion Freeman (12/28/2007)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Except that you need to express dates in universal YYYYMMDD format to avoid conflict with local date settings
Heh... yeah... then there's that...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:54 am
sorry Jeff I have to disagree, even if the clustered index is on an indentity column then the clustered index is actually the entire table, regardless of the index being...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:48 am
Navision will find and rewrite performance challenged code?
Ok, since you brougt it up, I'll bite... what does Navision do?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:45 am
Heh... agreed... but I'm not a moderator... usually, I'm just part of the problem 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:43 am
That makes perfect sense...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:40 am
pavithag_clarion (12/28/2007)
Can you explain in detail please..
Dinesh's fine solution will work for SSIS... I just don't like SSIS 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:38 am
Heh... yeah... so they would say! After seeing the cruddy stored procedures they wrote (like sp_SpacedUsed, for example), it must be a "black light" 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:30 am
Jeff Moden (12/28/2007)
Koji Matsumura (12/28/2007)
Jeff Moden (12/28/2007)
Exactly what I did in my cross-tab code... nice, job, Koji...
Jeff,
with SET STATISTICS IO ON
SELECT TV.Feature, TV.RunStatus, 100.00 * COUNT(*) / B.FeatureCount
:
GROUP BY TV.Feature,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:25 am
Koji Matsumura (12/28/2007)
Jeff Moden (12/28/2007)
Exactly what I did in my cross-tab code... nice, job, Koji...
Jeff,
with SET STATISTICS IO ON
SELECT TV.Feature, TV.RunStatus, 100.00 * COUNT(*) / B.FeatureCount
:
GROUP BY TV.Feature, TV.RunStatus, B.FeatureCount
:
Mine...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:14 am
Then it's simple, Jason... Split what get's built for @SQL2 into two or 3 parts based on the number of RunStatuses (60 total) and change the execution to EXEC (@SQL1+@SQL2a+@SQL2b+@SQL2c+@SQL3)......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 11:04 am
Heh... I have a real appreciation for that, Jacob... it's called "arrogance" and I usually don't tolerate it. My feeling is that if they want it real bad, maybe...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 1:15 am
Exactly what I did in my cross-tab code... nice, job, Koji...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 1:11 am
Ok... enough suspense... I'll tell you why... first a review of the dreadful mistake that a lot of developers make. A developer has to solve the problem of returning...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2007 at 12:49 am
Viewing 15 posts - 53,296 through 53,310 (of 59,072 total)