Viewing 15 posts - 54,166 through 54,180 (of 59,098 total)
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
I'd only be regurgitating what's in Books Online... recommend you lookup "DELETE" in Books Online for a full explanation of SQL Server's proprietary and nasty fast DELETE. You might...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 12, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Things like this are normally simple syntax errors... of course, no one can troubleshoot that for you because you didn't post any code 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 12, 2007 at 11:53 pm
p.s. In English, they are "single quotes"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 12, 2007 at 11:51 pm
SELECT QUOTENAME(3,'''')
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 12, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 54,166 through 54,180 (of 59,098 total)