Viewing 15 posts - 54,136 through 54,150 (of 59,072 total)
I won't pass a table variable... best you can do is a result set that get's used as a table.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:37 am
Shaun McGuile (11/13/2007)
Just be consistent and be prepared to do translation when porting your SQL to other...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:34 am
Shaun McGuile (11/13/2007)
Jeff you rascal 😀
Heh... You know me, Shaun... I even challenge myself if I think I'm wrong 😀 Good man once told me "A Developer must not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:29 am
Sure... a little off topic... but I love it! Looking forwards to your post(s), Gail.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 5:25 am
Sting manipulation? Complex mathematical calcs? Heh... Let's have a race... let's start with string manipulation... How about splitting a comma seperated column and returning a table with the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 1:27 am
Then I'd use a function with a table variable... not gonna hurt performance any more than a stored proc.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 1:13 am
How many rows do you intend to return with 250 columns?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:57 am
Good synopsis of uses, Andy!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:48 am
Sounds to me like Tab1 is nothing more than a subset of Tab2... that would cause such a return even though only an inner join were present.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:43 am
vaidyanathan_kalyanasundaram (10/30/2007)
On a remote server...but my log in id has accees to SP_Sdidebug
I can't find any documention to support my thought on this, but don't you need to have "SA"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:39 am
1. Pretty sure the answer is "No".
2. I guess I'm not sure what you mean anymore... you can get a result set from a sproc and use it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:34 am
Well Jeff, it looks like you've got another comparison between the new 2005 T-SQL options and good 'ol fashioned set based operations. Here's another great reason not to jump right...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:27 am
You bet... thank all of you folks for the feedback.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:11 am
1. Yes... you would need to use it in dynamic SQL within the sproc, though.
2. No, but you can from a User Defined Function... (table variable, that is).
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:09 am
I can tell you you'll never get "8" because it has the exact same criteria as "7" which will always qualify first in your case statement. They ARE order...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 13, 2007 at 12:07 am
Viewing 15 posts - 54,136 through 54,150 (of 59,072 total)