Viewing 15 posts - 54,091 through 54,105 (of 59,089 total)
Alright, this looks simple when thought. It is like multiplication, and I could do it with "dreaded cartesian product" CROSS JOIN. This is crazy stuff. I am looking at tables...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 17, 2007 at 7:24 am
Ummm.... I'd check the intelligence factor... domething made the DB grow... what makes you think it won't happen again...
Shrinking DB's are one of the worst things you can do...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Generating and estimated execution plan is almost as good as running the code...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Simple math... divide by (1024*1024) (binary mb)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Brian is correct...
What I really want to know, is how that might have worked in 2k at all... would have given the same error with the code displayed by the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Ummm... you might want to be just a little careful with that code, Carl... actual execution plan show something worse than a cross-join at over 165 rows in one spot...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Jeff, I'm going to steal that concat function from you. I normally resrt to temp tables and cursors
Absolutely no problem, Gail... that's one of the highest forms of compliments I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 10:42 pm
There's not much you can do to "tune" this proc... it needs to be written to use proper set-based code instead of the RBAR-on-Steriods that you're using in both this...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 7:23 am
This is a duplicate post (I hate these!)... Check for the answer I gave on the other identical post...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic422993-338-1.aspx
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 7:09 am
So I have the following questions:
1) Does SQL Server 2000 allow me to access ntext fields from the inserted or deleted tables? If so, why I am getting the above...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 7:01 am
Having those settings in the sproc will help with a lot of things... but I think you need to also have those setting turned on for YOUR session when you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 6:55 am
I'd keep it simple... create a linked server to the "other" server. Then do a SELECT TOP 1 * FROM [linkedservername].Master.dbo.Sysobjects (or, in 2k5, I think it would be...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 6:51 am
I'm curious though... with over two billion numbers available to the INT datatype, why do you feel it's necessary to keep the ID column "gap free"? What is the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 6:48 am
Heh... Yes... it would return "45" on "4 out of 5 stars"... it wasn't designed to make "descisions"... current function was only designed to return characters that meet a pattern.
I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 16, 2007 at 6:43 am
Since it's been a 3 1/2 days since I asked, I don't feel bad about saying this, at all...
I knew it! What a jerk you are! Folks like...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 15, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 54,091 through 54,105 (of 59,089 total)