Viewing 15 posts - 54,496 through 54,510 (of 59,072 total)
Not sure what you're trying to do, but here's a different angle... think of it as a "set-based IF" 😀
SELECT TOP 1
CASE...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 5:50 pm
GUI code (Like VB, etc) and SQL have different base dates and one may not have recognized the year 2000 as a leap year.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I agree... way to much "big brother" already...
Shoot, I'm still ticked off about having Fluoride, ABS, airbags, seatbelts, lid laws, the fact that my truck records the last 5...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Although I got the answer right, it's kind of misleading... if the value of a column has been updated to the same value (usually do to bad GUI code), do...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm
First of all... I'm not going to solve all your problems with all your temp tables, etc, etc... You've already done most of that. My purpose here is just...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This is a classic "Name/Value" table that you have where both the name of the attribute and the value of the attribute are contained in rows instead of having separate...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Here's a way to make lots of constrained test data of many types... so far as not making "too many" rows, I agree, partially... when you are experimenting to make...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 9:16 am
luissantos (10/19/2007)
My problem...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 8:43 am
Heh... I thought the same thing... but there's two columns that look very much alike...
Committed_Fund_ID
Committed_Fund_Item_ID
I don't see the Committed_Fund_Item_ID being used in the problem GROUP BY query... 'course, the formatting...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 8:35 am
Heh... yeah... I forgot about that. Well said...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 8:28 am
Not sure I agee about linked servers always being slower... I've found that it depends on the number of hops it has to make... I've got several linked servers at...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 8:25 am
Heh... I'm thinking you missed a great "tool box" opportunity with the DBA... not a problem... thanks for the feedback.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 8:15 am
That so wierd
Umm... using passthrough "synonym" views to perform the crosstalk between databases without using the full 3 part naming convention was the whole purpose of the article... what's wierd...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 12:37 am
You didn't wait long enough
Couple of us didn't... I missed that... sorry. :ermm:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 12:29 am
vadimt (10/18/2007)
i dont need it as a function because i need it only in one place in the whole...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 20, 2007 at 12:19 am
Viewing 15 posts - 54,496 through 54,510 (of 59,072 total)