Viewing 15 posts - 55,006 through 55,020 (of 59,098 total)
Heh... I understand what the rules are trying to say and (actually) very much agree with them, but I'm thinking that those definitions could be seriously misconstrued by those trying...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 19, 2007 at 6:41 am
Chris has the right idea with the Numbers table... except he didn't carry it far enough... we can do the whole table without a loop.
First, as Chris had in his...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 19, 2007 at 6:19 am
Setting a database's Auto_Shrink property to ON is probably not the best idea in the world. Something made it grow, you did something to reduce it's size, it's gonna grow...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 19, 2007 at 5:15 am
By the way, if the definition of "set based" is...
- it opens the recordset (table in this case) once;
- it accesses each value in the recordset once;
- for any row...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Heh... hell no
According to some of the people I work with, you need to rebuild the power company ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Heh... no such problems if you don't allow the coders to promote their own code and the DBA actually does his/her job...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Heh... you did that, too, huh?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Dunno that, Tracey, but I'm still looking for the URL to the original article you sited...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 8:25 pm
| Then we have some fairly quiet periods where we work on tuning things that don't work well. |
Heh.. thought...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Then, have the batch precreate a file with the header names (using ECHO) and use OSQL to call the proc using the >> DOS append symbol instead of the -o parameter......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Care to share so we might all learn something? ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Nice to see it when folks post both example data and code... nicely done, John.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 5:49 pm
... or, you can throw hardware at the problem
... r-i-g-h-t... ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 5:44 pm
My recommendation in SQL Server 2000 would be to always drop the proc so that you can easily tell, just by the CreateDate, that you have the correct rev especially...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I recommend you don't post your password or server name anymore... just a thought ![]()
Yes... there's lot's of ways to do this... you can...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 18, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 55,006 through 55,020 (of 59,098 total)