Viewing 15 posts - 54,136 through 54,150 (of 59,089 total)
I'll pick up that gauntlet.. How about we up the ante a little. Split the string, return the PK, the split value AND the index in the original string....
Heh......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 8:56 pm
but we have others who are about to (use this to "gut" CTE's).
Like me! 😀
Heh... I don't need this thread to gut CTE's... most code examples that use them in...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I've found is that in some cases one is much better than the other two
In what way? Not necessarily looking for an example, but how were they better?
CTE is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Vivien Xing (11/13/2007)
Comparing query performance from different server/SQL edition? It is supposed to compare based on the same server setting/configuration.
Isn't that like saying two different size dump trucks...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Guess I'm just gonna have to document that proc from BOL... 😛
Andy, what the max number of parts a given assembly can have? There's a reason why I ask......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:40 am
Grumpy... looks like you have PM disabled. Wanted to send you my cell phone number. Might be fun to get together and do some 12 ounce curls wilst...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:36 am
HOLY SON OF A .. %&@$#@ !!!!
I never imagined the recursive CTE would be perform so poorly...
Heh... my work is almost done here...
Peter, did you have some...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:32 am
... and what happened to the Cross-Apply Peter was talking about?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:29 am
Yes, I used the tally table (or as you named it (myNumbers).
I didn't realize you wanted the Clustered index removed for the test.
So the new results with the PK...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:26 am
This is starting to be a little like pulling teeth, Phamm...
Why does the report need to be in this format? No fair saying the users want it that way......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 7:02 am
Jason,
Did you test only the Tally table method? Sorry, I can't really tell from your post...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 6:29 am
You're getting a "scan" on the Tally table? Did you remove the Clustered Index it had?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 6:27 am
On which method, Peter?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:51 am
Took the words right out of my mouth... prize for participants and casual observers alike will be more knowledge. "Some of the best 'Things' in life are not 'Things'"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:49 am
Cool... now we're talking some testing!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:46 am
Viewing 15 posts - 54,136 through 54,150 (of 59,089 total)