Viewing 15 posts - 54,436 through 54,450 (of 59,098 total)
Greg Snidow (10/26/2007)
Well, I can't replicate it, but I know I had an issue with it before. Maybe I'm just crazy.
No, not crazy... both of the following will order...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 26, 2007 at 8:25 am
Ooohh.... heh... the only time I ever explicity declare cursors is to demo how slow they are when I do... if SQL Server wants to use cursors internally, that's fine......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 26, 2007 at 7:58 am
Heh... you already know this, but the emphasize, loop joins (especially) and a bunch of other "internal" things are really high speed "cursors" that operate at machine language levels.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 26, 2007 at 7:11 am
Heh... right there with you Matt... lot's of things to think about... the things you brought up are going to help me answer a lot of questions I suddenly have...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 25, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Since this is a 2k5 forum... my recommendation would be to convert the date in the TEXT column to a VARCHAR(MAX) column and then implement Full-text indexing as Gail originally...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 25, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Hot damn! I found it! I finally remembered it had something to do with one of my "running total" posts... here's the three marvelous rules I was looking...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 25, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Sadly, no, but that's a hell of an article that I'm going to add to my collection... Thanks, Peter...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Barkingdog (10/24/2007)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Excellent observation!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Thanks for the feedback... I've not had the same nightmare with the file system as you, though. Maybe I've just been lucky, so far.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Susan Laing (10/23/2007)
CAST(
CASE WHEN ISDATE(SUBSTRING(params, PATINDEX('%[ImportDate=%', params)+13, 19) )...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Heh... dunno about anyone else, but as stated in my last... I'm just testing for duration comparisons of simple parallel methods, Ken... what are you going on about?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I'm not so worried about me reading into such questions... I'm more worried that someone will take the answer as the gospel and mess up their data when they actually...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 7:41 pm
By default, SQL Server is not case senstive... you would have had to setup case sensitity when you setup the server or made a change to the who server after...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Jeff your method is equisite as usual
Thank for the nice compliment, Adam...:blush:
Hopefully, Luissantos doesn't have a million rows...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 24, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 54,436 through 54,450 (of 59,098 total)