Viewing 15 posts - 54,646 through 54,660 (of 59,072 total)
You've managed, quite nicely, to build a partially exclusive Cartesian Join known as a "double triangle" join. Please see the following post...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic359124-338-1.aspx#bm360151
You need some other criteria, hopefully and equi-join,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 11, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hi Greg,
I don't know if Belution is kaput or not... I've seen them go down for several weeks only to rise again. Looks pretty bad this time, though... haven't seen...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 11, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Well sure it does, Ken... how else are you going to "step through the databases"? sp_ForEachDB??? That's got dynamic SQL and cursors, too!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 11, 2007 at 6:16 am
Heh... yeah... several solutions similar to that were posted.
The remaining question I have is, what will this be used for? Without knowing were the decimal point WAS... the information...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 11, 2007 at 6:02 am
... and that was my point... not all Dynamic SQL is bad nor even indesireable.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 11, 2007 at 5:56 am
So far, nobody can explains to me that my original query with INNER JOIN doen't works and without INNER JOIN, works very nice.
... and you haven't posted the real life...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 10, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Please provide the code and data that demonstrates when the correctly specified Update and Index fails. Then provide your correct Order By method that solves the problem.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 10, 2007 at 7:18 am
The code you have is the classic code necessary to put records together from multiple rows in a name/value table. It's actually pretty darned fast... only thing faster would...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 10, 2007 at 6:41 am
Sarvesh,
First... when you get an error, you need to post it so we can see what's going on.
Second... are you actually using SQL Server 2005?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 10, 2007 at 6:29 am
Saritha... it would be really nice if you shared how you solved it. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm
No... if you're talking about simple duration measurements, it's not useless... you've just gotta make sure they're either both "hot" or both "cold" 😛
But, in the face of blocking, looking...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Heh... Thanks, Noel... I keep forgetting to check the date on the original post...
Oh well... keeps my hand at typing and I have seen it where the OP actually...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 10:28 pm
The update method works well, in all cases... and it does NOT depend on a Clustered Index... just SOME index.
You just need to settle down, maybe have a beer, and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hey folks... I had reason to revisit this post to demo to someone else... I don't know what change was recently made to the 2k server I work on but...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Linda Robinson (10/9/2007)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 9, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 54,646 through 54,660 (of 59,072 total)